bigbadfeline

5 ms·

1.
by bigbadfeline 3d ago
> what's the venn diagram of folks who support this, and who supported Brexit? Unfortunately, in the long run folks don't count, they do as they're told sooner or later - when money talks it's only a matter of time. I
2.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> If the position is that one of these models will go out of control and destroy humanity then why would having two such models be safer than one? Models don't go out of control, they generate totally harmless tokens. The people dir
3.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> I don't see how this isn't analogous to what we could do with AI. Considering the article we are commenting on, the analogous proposal would be to imprison scientists for 20 years if they dare research nuclear power - no matt
4.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> less than 5% of the world's countries have nuclear weapons Counting countries is plenty deceptive. Population is the real metric, China, India, Pakistan are all nuclear, everything added together, 50% of the world's populatio
5.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
NYT > A.I. Was Supposed to Give Us New Killer Apps. What Happened? According to the AI creators, AI itself is the ultimate killer app - literally.
6.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> What a complete and total joke. The only joke I see are your comments which make absolutely no sensible argument in support of an even less sensible cure - the magic "slowdown". What's "slowdown"? Everyone is f
7.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> as those who work at major corporations or have connections are allowed to use the good AIs, while individuals are left using stunted AIs A real danger we're sleepwalking into. > Is AI oligarchy the future? They certainly aren&
8.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> If someone is worried about AI killing _all_ humans, shouldn't they absolutely focus on that? This is more of a sound bite than a substantive argument because we can consider natural disease, biology research, aliens, climate, sup
9.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
> I don’t think anymore we had a massive intelligence jump. Not among the public-facing models, they're indeed stagnating. However, the development of models for military use won't be slowed down, that much is certain. > The
10.
by bigbadfeline 4d ago
FWIW, I meant "they would have everything... including you and me" . It seems I wasn't clear enough and it sounded like "you and me... walk out the door with a copy" - obviously the latter isn't realistic,
11.
by bigbadfeline 5d ago
> the capability gap is underestimated. The capability gap is in the minds of the users but the frontiers' closed business models run opposite to it. > the things are kept under air-gapped national weapons grade security measures
12.
by bigbadfeline 5d ago
> It's horrifying, but a world in which everyone has a superintelligence is a world where that will sometimes happen. It's horrifying, but a world in which only few have superintelligence is a world where that will happen all
13.
by bigbadfeline 7d ago
> AI is an authoritarian's dream. Correction: Closed AI is an authoritarian's dream.
14.
by bigbadfeline 7d ago
> - AIs can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values Humans can do that way more and way more unhinged than AI, proven too many times by history. There's hoping AI can bring some sense to h
15.
by bigbadfeline 7d ago
> I really think its just unknowable how a world after superintelligence will look. I'd argue that there would be more unknowables without AGI than with it, should be obvious, right? Open superintelligence is more likely to help tha
16.
by bigbadfeline 11d ago
> Ad-hominems in an Economist article. As expected - that source rarely publishes anything else. Here's another pearl [1], where they're rejoicing over the kettle's burned color. In both cases The Economist is totally blin
17.
by bigbadfeline 12d ago
> a bunch of broken links in a few years Who cares, by that time the originals and their copies would be a lot less worthy of viewing.
18.
by bigbadfeline 13d ago
> I thought it was pretty well understood amongst experts that trying to interpret so-called "chain of thought" is anthopomorphization Ah, experts... Chatting with a bot is no less "anthopomorphization" that chain of
19.
by bigbadfeline 16d ago
> If demand is projected continue for a long time, this may encourage more competitors to enter this space, so supply will increase. There are no competitors that can muster the capital to make decent RAM... other than China but China is
20.
by bigbadfeline 18d ago
> Spoken like a true Chinese bot The comment you blame provided factual information about a glaring conflict of interest, yours is a substance-free ad hominem. Are there Chinese bots on X? Probably... dwarfed by Grok and other domestic A
21.
by bigbadfeline 18d ago
> But AI isn't a bad guy. But it can be, as every other tool. Actually, it can be worse (or better) than any other tool. In other words, "AI is this or that" is a meaningless statement, it can be many different things, eve
22.
by bigbadfeline 19d ago
> They want computers in racks now and (rightfully imo) look at yearslong approval processes with disgust. Disgust of the rules for me but not for thee? The rest of us have to follow the rules, but not them. How about disgust for actual
23.
by bigbadfeline 19d ago
> Silicon Valley is clearly responding to massive demand for AI services > to provide services that people and companies want so badly Not at all. In economics, demand has little to do with "wants", it means paying the pric
24.
by bigbadfeline 19d ago
Good catch, the self-contradictions in the excusatory narrative are becoming hard to ignore.
25.
by bigbadfeline 20d ago
p2p?
26.
by bigbadfeline 20d ago
> Corporations are only people when it comes to rights and profits. When it comes to responsibilities they revert to being nebulous entities whose behaviors are emergent phenomena that no one can actually be held accountable for. You do
27.
by bigbadfeline 20d ago
> Doubtful. These tools will be more useful in capable hands than in the hands of a drooling idiot. "drooling idiot" is just a figure of speech, I'm sure. The point is, the moat is now more like a narrow puddle which few w
28.
by bigbadfeline 21d ago
>> OTOH, fighting bigotry is something we should never leave behind. > [we] just want to exist without being attacked for being themselves and [they say we're] wolves who need to be shot to protect the sheep. Weird, you'
29.
by bigbadfeline 21d ago
And to add to the above: by building their own supply chain for chips, China is helping the unprivileged, those who can't front-run the market with long-term contracts. If China wasn't producing their own chips, the prices for us
30.
by bigbadfeline 21d ago
The export controls were not revoked, only reduced, and not before, but after China refused to buy low performing chips. Top gear was and is still sanctioned, as is any EUVL equipment.

More ›