muldvarp

7 ms·

1.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
You're arguing against a point I never made. I agree that AI will be an important technology. I also think that it'll affect people that have to work for a living negatively (both in the short-term and assuming there is no foundat
2.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
By that definition gasoline would not classify as a consequential technology as it's almost exclusively used in a single application (transportation). It also already assumes that the technology is more often benefical than harmful.
3.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Fear is not usually a voluntary response. Telling people that they should not fear something (especially without an argument why there is no danger) is wasted effort.
4.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
The printing press, automobile and calculator didn't threaten the employability of a large part of the population, so no, that sentence was probably not uttered by anyone at that time. The problem with AI isn't that it's thre
5.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Leaded gasoline to me is a very consequential technology given how much toxic lead it put into our environment. Do you have an argument why "normal" technology can be good or bad, but "consequential" technology is always
6.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Unions only work because their members have leverage because the wealthy still need their labour. Unions will do absolutely nothing against full replacement by AI.
7.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> How will it destroy your life? By taking away my ability to earn a living. > There are so many great and useful things it can and will do to improve humanity. What great things and why would I get access to those things?
8.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> The ability to create software accelerates technological progress, which has direct and indirect benefits for everyone. It has benefits for people with enough leverage (money and formerly labour) to obtain those benefits. > It is tr
9.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
The fact a technology is still in use does not imply that it is not negative for humanity.
10.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
I don't consider myself as part of a "laptop class", I don't live in the US and I'm anti-immigration.
11.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
I suspect your reasoning is circular if you only consider "great" technologies.
12.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
There are many technologies that have not been a net positive for humanity. Leaded gasoline comes to mind immediately. For many other technologies it is also hard to determine because counterfactuals are hard to reason about. Even then past
13.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Because the ability to create software has little inherent value to me and is only valuable to me because it allows me to earn enough to make this life somewhat bearable. LLMs that can build a computer vision pipeline are a direct threat to
14.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Why should I be amazed at something that promises to destroy my life? I genuinely don't understand why people who have to work for their living are amazed at this. It will have a vast negative impact on your life unless you already liv
15.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Okay? We have information that Anthropic sucked up all of the internet for the development of Fable.
16.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> "Our AI makes your workers X times more productive" This is still replacement, it's just not _total_ replacement.
17.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
You're not the target audience of his attempts at advertising. Your employer is. So, to answer your question: Dario does not care.
18.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
What else would they advertise with? "Our model constantly makes mistakes so you still have to hire expensive humans to proof-read everything"? The entire point of the AI industry is to automate human jobs. There is nothing else t
19.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
The existing biological evidence took billions of years of evolution to get to the state it's at. So it may not just take research and discovery but also enormous computing power.
20.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> Why do you think tech bro billions aren't also subject to replacement by AI? Because they're billionaires. They don't actually work for a living. They own stuff for a living. > And fully superhuman AI eliminates the m
21.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
He isn't saying that anyone not born in Sweden is forced to leave. You should try to actually read and understand the quote.
22.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Sadly your comment does not contain any actual argument as to _why_ you think the quote is ethnonationalist.
23.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> The math community was not a global underclass. I never claimed they were. The term "permanent underclass" refers to the preferred world order of AI techbro billionaires[1] where human labour is worthless and in consequence n
24.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Do you think the CEO of your company hired you and pays a lot of money for you because they like you?
25.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> so it's kind of annoying I'm not really going to see any upsides to an AI world either I don't think the "permanent underclass" will see many upsides either. They certainly won't have the money to pay for
26.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
I think the training data contains more than enough information for an LLM to learn what kind of proof is considered beautiful or elegant by humans. Of course it also contains more than enough information to learn what kind of question is i
27.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Doesn't that mean you bet against the bitter lesson?
28.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
Do you assume that five years from now you'll get paid for coding with LLMs?
29.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
I think anyone willing to pay $500k is well aware that LLMs can be used to find vulnerabilities.
30.
by muldvarp 2mo ago
> Of course AI can also farm conjectures, but they have to develop taste, which might be harder than just proving theorems. Do you have any argument why you might think this would be true?

More ›