danaris

22 ms·

481.
by danaris 9mo ago
Not then either, unless you like eating space rocks.
482.
by danaris 9mo ago
> If they're just collecting data to train LLMs, these seem like exceptionally poorly written and abusive scrapers written the normal way, but by more bad actors. Right, this is exactly what they are. They're written by people
483.
by danaris 9mo ago
No, but there are some hard prerequisites—that is to say, there may be some fuzzy territory in the middle, but we can say with certainty that, say, a stone is not conscious, and that we are. (And no, I don't give a drop of credit or ti
484.
by danaris 9mo ago
> They're already far more capable than most AIs envisioned by 20th century science fiction authors. They're not conscious, autonomous agents. They're fancy scripts. HAL 9000 had more in common with a human than ChatGPT.
485.
by danaris 9mo ago
"Throughout human history", approximately 90% of all work was to produce food . More work meant more food, which meant more people could survive. We don't have to do that anymore. We have enough food for everyone. Now, we&#x
486.
by danaris 9mo ago
Well, at least thus far, the only reason my life is worse due to AI is because of all the people who won't stop talking about how amazing it is for vibe-coding everything from scratch despite ample empirical evidence to the contrar
487.
by danaris 9mo ago
Not everything is worthy of discussion. "The earth is flat" is one of those things. "The singularity is happening" is one of those things. "LLMs are AGI" is yet another. They've already been discussed to d
488.
by danaris 9mo ago
It's not a nothingburger; it's a massive collection of personally identifying information.
489.
by danaris 9mo ago
It is perfectly logically consistent to say "big companies should not be able to abuse IP law to prevent competition and take away things we've legitimately bought" and to also say "big companies should not be able to us
490.
by danaris 9mo ago
The version I described is the only one I've ever heard anyone else referring to. Just because you can find someone referring to something else as a "technological singularity" doesn't mean it's reasonable to say
491.
by danaris 9mo ago
You mean like the billionaires who do nearly no work, yet reap huge percentages of the spoils of all that we do?
492.
by danaris 9mo ago
I was 100% clear what I was arguing against from the very start. > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. You doubled down, changed the subject, and moved the goalposts. If you had said what you claim to be your point 12 hours
493.
by danaris 9mo ago
I mean, what you're describing is technological advancement. It's great! I'm fully in favor of it, and I fully believe in it. It's not the singularity. The singularity is a specific belief that we will achieve AGI, and t
494.
by danaris 9mo ago
OK, maybe take it down a few notches? I'm only "in the tech industry" in the literal sense, not in the cultural sense. I work in academia, making programs for professors and students, and I think the stuff "the tech indu
495.
by danaris 9mo ago
Honestly, I'm all for something like that. It is, however, a much harder sell for most people.
496.
by danaris 9mo ago
> People need to do something in order to recieve money Why? What purpose does this serve? Why should people have to prove their worthiness to be allowed to continue living?
497.
by danaris 9mo ago
It was, several years ago. That's so much not the case now that renewables + batteries were by far the largest source of new generation in the US (yes, the US, with Trump actively trying to destroy them) last year. Look up some of the
498.
by danaris 9mo ago
But...that's just a complete non sequitur. The proposition wasn't " all the viable land/fishing spots will be destroyed". No one has been arguing that. It was "when we lose this viable fishing spot, another s
499.
by danaris 9mo ago
What rapid acceleration? I look at the trajectory of LLMs, and the shape I see is one of diminishing returns. The improvements in the first few generations came fast, and they were impressive. Then subsequent generations took longer, impr
500.
by danaris 9mo ago
Some of us have a perfectly good game plan for that. It's called Universal Basic Income. It's just that many powerful people have a vested interest in keeping the rest of us poor, miserable, and desperate, and so do everything t
501.
by danaris 9mo ago
> the singularity is happening [Citation needed] No LLM is yet being used effectively to improve LLM output in exponential ways. Personally, I'm skeptical that such a thing is possible. LLMs aren't AGI, and aren't a path t
502.
by danaris 9mo ago
You said > some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. and provided no basis for that claim. Not "some other spot may become viable." Not "the amount lost will be minimal." Not "we will be able to get by
503.
by danaris 9mo ago
> So you'd think tax cuts would create more jobs Only if you believe in trickle-down economics, which many people could see was bunk when Reagan first implemented it 40 years ago.
504.
by danaris 9mo ago
So you're really just full on board with the Ebenezer Scrooge "if they would rather die, then let them get on with it!" school of thought, then, huh? It's been a while since I had to break out the I Don't Know How T
505.
by danaris 9mo ago
> Those prawns can be replaced by food that is grown in other places that are viable, whether newly viable or always viable is irrelevant. But those prawns are gone. The people whose livelihood depended on them have lost that. The people
506.
by danaris 9mo ago
> some other spot will, necessarily, become viable. What is your basis for this claim? It's entirely possible for prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique to simply...go extinct. For areas with good arable land to be plunged int
507.
by danaris 9mo ago
Right, and we know that modern human societies are really good at planning for a major disaster on a multi-decade time horizon! Look at how well we've dealt with the climate cri—oh, wait. This won't end humanity , no. But it is l
508.
by danaris 9mo ago
It doesn't much matter how Pichai sees himself . What matters is how Trump and ICE see him. And all they really notice is the color of the skin.
509.
by danaris 9mo ago
But what they can do, that AI can't, is try new things in measured, effective, and ethical ways. And that hypothetical "billions of hours of human life saved" has to be measured against the actual damage being done right
510.
by danaris 9mo ago
Ah, yes: "well, we can't cure cancer or autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases, but I'm willing to invest basically all my money into a thing that's...trained on the things we know how to do already, and isn't

More ›