5 ms·

They're talking about shit that isn't real because it advances their personal goals, keeps eyes on them, whatever. I think the effect on funding is overhyped --

They're talking about shit that isn't real because it advances their personal goals, keeps eyes on them, whatever. I think the effect on funding is overhyped -- OpenAI got their big investment before this doomer/e-acc dueling narrative surge, and serious investors are still determining viability through due diligence, not social media front pages. Basically, it's just more self-serving media pollution in an era that's drowning in it. Let the nerds who actually make this stuff have their say and argue it out, it's a shame they're famously bad at grabbing and holding onto the spotlight.

pixl97 3y ago
Just to play devils advocate to this type of response. What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence? Now, you're not allowed to say humans are magical and computers will never do this. For the sake of this theoretical debate it's already been developed and we can make millions of them. What does this world look like?
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > What does this world look like? It looks imaginary. Or, if you prefer, it looks hypothetical. The point isn't how we would respond if this were real. The point is, it isn't real - at least not at this point in time, and it's not looking like it's going to be real tomorrow, either. I'm not sure what purpose is served by "imagine that I'm right and you're wrong; how do you respond"?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Thank god you're not charge of military planning. "Hey the next door neighbors are spending billions on a superweapon, but don't worry, they'll never build it"
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      On some things that is not a bad position: The old SDI had a lot of spending but really not much to show for it while at the same time forcing the USSR into a reaction based on what today might be called "hype".
      - pixl97 3y ago
        The particular problem arises when both actors in the game have good economies and build the superweapons. We happened to somewhat luck out that the USSR was an authoritarian shithole that couldn't keep up, yet we still have thousands of nukes laying about because of this. I'd rather not get in an AI battle with China and have us build the world eating machine.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        SDI's superweapons remained by-and-large a fantasy, though. Just because a lot of money is pouring in doesn't mean it will succeed.
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  > "What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence?" What if tomorrow you drop a baby on my desk? Because that's essentially what you're saying, and we already "make millions of them" every year.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    If I drop a baby on your desk you have to pay for it for the next 18 years. If I connect a small unit to a flying drone, stick a knife on it, and tell it to stab you in your head then you have a problem today.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence? I would say the question is not answerable as-is. First, we have no idea what it even means to say "human level intelligence". Second, I'm quite certain that a computer unit with such capabilities if it existed, would be alien, not "human". It wouldn't live in our world, and it wouldn't have our senses. To it, the internet would probably be more real than a cat in the same room. If we have something we can related to, I'm pretty sure we have to build some sort of robot, capable of living in the same environment we do.
zamfi 3y ago
The "nerds" are having their say and arguing it out, mostly outside of the public view but the questions are too nuanced or technical for a general audience. I'm not sure I see how the hype intrudes on that so much? It seems like you have a bone to pick and it's about the attention being on Musk/Altman/etc. but I'm still not sure that "self-serving media pollution" is having that much of an impact on the people on the ground? What am I missing, exactly?
- heyitsguay 3y ago
  My comment was about wanting to see more (nerds) -> (public) communication, not about anything (public) -> (nerds). I understand they're not good at it, it was just an idealistic lament. My bone to pick with Musk and Altman and their ilk is their damage to public discourse, not that they're getting attention per se. Whether that public discourse damage really matters is its own conversation.

pixl97 3y ago

Just to play devils advocate to this type of response. What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence? Now, you're not allowed to say humans are magical and computers will never do this. For the sake of this theoretical debate it's already been developed and we can make millions of them. What does this world look like?

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> What does this world look like? It looks imaginary. Or, if you prefer, it looks hypothetical. The point isn't how we would respond if this were real. The point is, it isn't real - at least not at this point in time, and it's not looking like it's going to be real tomorrow, either. I'm not sure what purpose is served by "imagine that I'm right and you're wrong; how do you respond"?
- pixl97 3y ago
  Thank god you're not charge of military planning. "Hey the next door neighbors are spending billions on a superweapon, but don't worry, they'll never build it"
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    On some things that is not a bad position: The old SDI had a lot of spending but really not much to show for it while at the same time forcing the USSR into a reaction based on what today might be called "hype".
    - pixl97 3y ago
      The particular problem arises when both actors in the game have good economies and build the superweapons. We happened to somewhat luck out that the USSR was an authoritarian shithole that couldn't keep up, yet we still have thousands of nukes laying about because of this. I'd rather not get in an AI battle with China and have us build the world eating machine.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        SDI's superweapons remained by-and-large a fantasy, though. Just because a lot of money is pouring in doesn't mean it will succeed.
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence?" What if tomorrow you drop a baby on my desk? Because that's essentially what you're saying, and we already "make millions of them" every year.
- pixl97 3y ago
  If I drop a baby on your desk you have to pay for it for the next 18 years. If I connect a small unit to a flying drone, stick a knife on it, and tell it to stab you in your head then you have a problem today.
dale_glass 3y ago
> What if tomorrow I drop a small computer unit in front of you that has human level intelligence? I would say the question is not answerable as-is. First, we have no idea what it even means to say "human level intelligence". Second, I'm quite certain that a computer unit with such capabilities if it existed, would be alien, not "human". It wouldn't live in our world, and it wouldn't have our senses. To it, the internet would probably be more real than a cat in the same room. If we have something we can related to, I'm pretty sure we have to build some sort of robot, capable of living in the same environment we do.

zamfi 3y ago

The "nerds" are having their say and arguing it out, mostly outside of the public view but the questions are too nuanced or technical for a general audience. I'm not sure I see how the hype intrudes on that so much? It seems like you have a bone to pick and it's about the attention being on Musk/Altman/etc. but I'm still not sure that "self-serving media pollution" is having that much of an impact on the people on the ground? What am I missing, exactly?

heyitsguay 3y ago
My comment was about wanting to see more (nerds) -> (public) communication, not about anything (public) -> (nerds). I understand they're not good at it, it was just an idealistic lament. My bone to pick with Musk and Altman and their ilk is their damage to public discourse, not that they're getting attention per se. Whether that public discourse damage really matters is its own conversation.