trention

22 ms·

181.
by trention 4y ago
>Nobody can stop the march of progress. Several periods of known human history, starting from the late bronze age, disagree.
182.
by trention 4y ago
>It's hard to imagine the mental gymnastics required to think the two are in the same league. It's really not hard. You just have to care more for the harm to the well-being of human artists than for the harm for the well-being
183.
by trention 4y ago
What you're describing is essentially a DSL. We can ruminate on the exact level of details that will be needed but in my opinion by necessity it will be a lot higher than what most commenters in those threads are imagining. Open API sp
184.
by trention 4y ago
As I said, if I can't distinguish it, I will stop reading "it" at all. There is no utility in reading text that is not human-generated.
185.
by trention 4y ago
>off the prompt "like Facebook only better" This prompt is unspecific to the point of unusableness. Even if this works some day, the spec used will be a lot more detailed, in higher-level pseudocode style.
186.
by trention 4y ago
Diminishing returns.
187.
by trention 4y ago
Why would I want to read a blog post written by an AI about a program written by an AI besides novelty? The moment an input in a medium becomes primarily AI-generated is the moment I stop using said medium.
188.
by trention 4y ago
>People will learn to pay more attention to the reputation and publishers will apply more scrutiny in return A subset of the people will but most will not. Right now obviously fake news stories are shared left and right, without even a m
189.
by trention 4y ago
My personal opinion is that it's unethical (and possibly illegal, in a subset of cases) to train models on data without explicit consent of the creators of that data. And that really encompasses all data - generative models were not a
190.
by trention 4y ago
If you are well-aware, why didn't you use a more adequate money supply measure like M2 or M3? Is it maybe because the growth there was nothing out of the ordinary looking at the past 10 years?
191.
by trention 4y ago
And I think your hunch is about as correct as your rationale for posting the M1 graphic without reading the note below it or noticing that it jumped 4-fold in a single month.
192.
by trention 4y ago
If you think you will be able to tell by looking at a period of 6 months whether a contraction (that hasn't actually even started yet in terms of total employment) is just a regular recession or the apocalypse you prophesize, I have a
193.
by trention 4y ago
There aren't "hundreds of millions" of developers on this planet. The talent pool is small because just a small fraction of the workforce worldwide has the training, skills and capabilities to work as software engineers.
194.
by trention 4y ago
There is no scenario in which tech declines without the US entering a recession and when the US enters a recession, the "cheap money" is going to be coming back. There is no way the dotcom crash is repeated because today IT is int
195.
by trention 4y ago
Because the AI is not a person and there is no reason to treat it like one, including by allowing it to "learn by looking at other peoples work".
196.
by trention 4y ago
Or maybe I haven't and GPT-4 will be ~on par with PaLM, already exhibiting diminishing returns as expected.
197.
by trention 4y ago
>cannot generate coherent dialog (and even then it's mostly bad dialog) spanning more than a minute or two I think that was pretty clear and that posted dialog is a perfect illustration. You cannot generate the entire movie script c
198.
by trention 4y ago
>then the real thing happens earlier than the most optimistic dates Is this like with self-driving cars that were supposed to be a consumer product in 5 years...in 2012? Or like when Hinton said radiologists will be completely replaced i
199.
by trention 4y ago
>Characters and dialogue are effectively solved, just look at GPT-3. Is this the motherload of exaggeration? Current language models cannot generate coherent dialog (and even then it's mostly bad dialog) spanning more than a minute
200.
by trention 4y ago
There weren't "uprisings" mostly because the destroyed jobs were replaced with others that paid better and were less "dangerous". There were some local minima (Detroit auto workers) where this happen only partially
201.
by trention 4y ago
Think of that 1 byte as a hyper-compressed essence of knowledge necessary to make said collage. Then it will be correct. Those models would not exist without the labor of the artist community - which in this case was used without consent an
202.
by trention 4y ago
Scale and access (≈quantity) matter.
203.
by trention 4y ago
There is enough work already done in game theory about the dangers of nuclear escalation. Current state of affairs pretty much ensures no rational agent will want to use them. On the other hand, when you model the interactions of significan
204.
by trention 4y ago
Short-term, textile workers in the UK at the time were definitely harmed by automation. They eventually managed to move to better paying jobs because those were available. There is no reason to believe there will be any jobs left in the age
205.
by trention 4y ago
>that’s a gain for humanity Imagine what has happened to american manufacturing workers since the 80s but happening to everyone on the planet. This is by no means a "gain".
206.
by trention 4y ago
>Has he ever been drastically wrong Has he ever made a prediction with as drastic a consequence and transformative potential as the one he is currently making about AGI? Actually, is there any track record of predictions he has made and
207.
by trention 4y ago
The old problem of induction. It's interesting how many of the AI accelerationist crowd are (purposefully pretending to be) unaware of it.
208.
by trention 4y ago
That scaling will eventually hit a wall. What was it about nerds and S-curves?
209.
by trention 4y ago
AGI will be more dangerous that nuclear weapons. People are not allowed to start a nuclear weapon company. At all. Why are people allowed to casually start an AGI company?
210.
by trention 4y ago
Because the history of the species on this planet clearly indicates that the smartest one will brutalize and exploit all the rest. There are good economic (and just plainly logical) reasons why adding "artificial" to the equation

More ›