2 ms·
I absolutely believe that AI will supercharge science and replace humans. Why shouldn't it? Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a sub
by unsupp0rted 5mo ago
I absolutely believe that AI will supercharge science and replace humans.
Why shouldn't it? Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a substrate that's barely hanging together
- stonogo 5mo agoNot like large language models, which only required tens of megawatts of power and use highly efficient monte carlo methods, eh
- TheOtherHobbes 5mo agoIndividual humans are processing nodes on human culture as a whole, which runs on rather more than tens of megawatts.
- unsupp0rted 5mo agoAlso it costs a lot to train and run individual humans, and they can only be run for brief periods per day before they crash, hallucinate and possibly get irretrievably broken.
- geraneum 5mo ago> Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a substrate that's barely hanging together Goodness gracious!
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- vatsachak 5mo agoWell, for starters AI doesn't have goals. If there was a super intelligence with goals, why would they work for us?
- devttyeu 5mo agoFwiw if you trained an LLM in an RL sandbox that would require it to have goals, the output llm probably would "have goals"
- lovecg 5mo agoI’d give humans some credit, they’re an adaptable bunch. AI won’t replace humans in the same way humans did not replace cockroaches. It’s a non-sequitur.
- bsza 5mo agoWe generally don’t allow cockroaches to thrive in the spaces we claim for ourselves. Question is how much space (economic or otherwise) will AI claim for itself and whether there will be any left for us.