4 ms·
Yeah, techno-religious types scare me. They're profoundly anti-human and seem capable of some heinous shit. You've written a lot of words to say "humans are fl
by dwb 2mo ago
Yeah, techno-religious types scare me. They're profoundly anti-human and seem capable of some heinous shit.
You've written a lot of words to say "humans are flawed, let's create a machine that's better", but trying to dress it up in flowery, lofty language. I'm not impressed by that. You have the programmer's disease of over-abstraction and over-active pattern recognition. You try to blur the line between essentially human, biological medicine, and technological development. They are not the same thing; they have completely different philosophies and aims.
I'll answer my rhetorical question: at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, people like Sam Altman and Dario Amodei are directing a lot of this. I do not want this. Enclaves of profit-seeking technologists are more-or-less the last people I want doing... well, anything, actually, but certainly not something that gets people like you in a religious fervour.
- drdaeman 2mo agoI’m not sure how you interpreted it all, but neither I was talking about any foreseeable future (I explicitly said that I dunno if LLMs are somewhat relatable to all this), nor I’m a religious type (I merely used a term “spirit” because this language was suggested in the thread). Every example was picked and vetted from popsci books I’ve read, with real basis in neuroscience (in my layman understanding, obviously, so I could’ve gotten something wrong, but I trust that a bit more than an online diagnosis). That blending was a pretty naive mix of a bunch of sci-fi tropes, but point taken - proper writers indeed blur those lines a lot better than my mess of a post.