trention

8 ms·

31.
by trention 4y ago
Ideally, I want the "army of robots" prevented from being created at all. But "robot slaves" is close to the second best option.
32.
by trention 4y ago
"Generating intelligent agents" is not a worthwhile (or safe, in any meaning of the latter) goal. I don't want anybody being able to generate "intelligent agents" and will support all legal changes likely to slow th
33.
by trention 4y ago
>the benefits of the technology are so huge, and the downsides to the original code author so tiny When this starts impacting emplyment opportunities for devs, get back to us with the "tiny" downsides.
34.
by trention 4y ago
I am not completely sure whether most of Ioannidis' own research is "false" - but all of his covid takes (in whatever form) are.
35.
by trention 4y ago
The first estimates from Ioannidis from the flawed (in every possible way) California paper were less than 0.1% IFR. He later revised them to 0.16% IFR, not sure if subsequent "revision" (=admission of being wrong) was done afterw
36.
by trention 4y ago
You are not the authority on what this (or any other) community is about. Fetishizing "progress" (whatever you think this means) is next level idiocy.
37.
by trention 4y ago
>If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie? Yes.
38.
by trention 4y ago
>ML training needs to be fair use of copyrighted works, or most machine learning and AI projects will be impossible. Good riddance then.
39.
by trention 4y ago
Eventually (not in the next 5 years but probably in the next 15) a system like this is going to lower the market salaries of developers (or make some of them outright unemployable). While using their own code as input to achieve that, witho
40.
by trention 4y ago
>Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. The toddler is human. AIs are not humans. It's a human right to learn. Non-humans don't (and shouldn't) have human rights. >Humans ar
41.
by trention 4y ago
>Do we smash the data centers now Yes, the sooner, the better.
42.
by trention 4y ago
All of this either doesn't matter or barely matters.
43.
by trention 4y ago
>Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apri
44.
by trention 4y ago
It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.
45.
by trention 4y ago
Logical fallacies don't necessarily equal stupidity though sometimes they do. A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bost
46.
by trention 4y ago
>advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.
47.
by trention 4y ago
Yes, as a general rule the government decides when it's ok to forbid you from doing something. If the US government wants, it can make it a crime to train/use these models. Banning the training part is pretty much game over for th
48.
by trention 4y ago
But there is a claim that not distributing guns to other children or giving them detailed instructions about how to get guns is more responsible than the reverse. Said "public research" didn't come with a requirement to relea
49.
by trention 4y ago
A big part of entertainment's appeal is having an experience/frame of reference to share with other people. Personalized entertainment doesn't offer that. I am also extremely skeptical of the ability/need so serve at ind
50.
by trention 4y ago
>where nobody really cares about the personal arc of the actor Speak for yourself. Actors do have fans, and a lot of them. Their personal lives are subjects of interest for a reason. So, no, not totally different at all.
51.
by trention 4y ago
You may want to familiarize yourself with this thought experiment and think how a slightly modified version applies to AIs and their output: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine As to whether I am an outlie
52.
by trention 4y ago
Because anything that an AI can produce, no matter how "intrinsically" good, becomes trivial, tedious and with zero value (both economic and general).
53.
by trention 4y ago
Why would I want to watch AI-generated content?
54.
by trention 4y ago
>Google has no special claim to be able to responsibly use these models Well, they do have the "special claim" of inventing the model and not owing its release to anyone.
55.
by trention 4y ago
>We're about a week into text-to-video models It's at the very least 5 years old: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00421
56.
by trention 4y ago
>I think you're on the money as to where that's headed. Why would the "machines" "negotiate" (presumably with other machines) using human tools like conversation and presentations? There are multiple algorit
57.
by trention 4y ago
Reading comprehension lacking again. As I stated clearly in a comment above, I support banning employers from firing anyone over anything non-criminal they are doing during off-hours. Also, I don't know exactly how far this is from the
58.
by trention 4y ago
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and attend logic 101 lest you continue inventing idiocy out of thin air.
59.
by trention 4y ago
It was absolutely obvious that the time period I was referencing was now, not 60 years ago. You have to be especially dense to not get that. Also, you were not explicitly asked or referenced in my comment so your first point is irrelevant.
60.
by trention 4y ago
>unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform No, actually if you just don't explicitly engage in hiring practices on the basis of ideology. https://unherd.com/thepost/political-discrimination-is

More ›