Drewelite @ Drewelite @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

334

Joined

2 yr. ago

The irony that this statement is flawed by its absolutionist position. Yes people can use relativism to justify awful shit. But that's not the outcome when used sensibly with the right intention.

And biases!

I think you're forgetting that a lot of churches are small fellowships co-opting an office space or like the other commenter said, out in the middle of nowhere. This wasn't a post about mega churches, but it's a fair point.

It's trivial to copy an LLM, but if you mean self improvement: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10020

You're right that it doesn't save too much money making people more efficient. That's why they will replace employees instead. That's the threat.

Yes they make mistakes. So do people. They just have to make less than an employee does and we're on the right track for that. AI will always make mistakes and this is actually a step in the right direction. Deterministic systems that rely on concrete input and perfectly crafted statistical models can't work in the real world. Once the system it is trying to evaluate (most systems in the real world) is sufficiently complex, you encounter unknown situations where you have to spend infinite time and energy gathering information and computing... or guess.

Our company is small and our customer inquiries increased several fold because our product expanded. We were panicking thinking we needed to train and hire a whole customer support department overnight, where we currently have one person. But instead we implement AI representatives. Our feedback actually became more positive because these agents can connect with you instantly, pull nebulous requests from confusing messages, and alert the appropriate employee of any action needed. Does it make mistakes? Sure, not enough to matter. It's simple for our customer service person to reach out and correct the mistake.

I think people that think this isn't a big deal for AGI don't understand how the human mind works. I find it funny when they try and articulate why they think LLMs are just a trick. "It's not really creating anything, it's just pulling a bunch of relevant material from its training data and using it as a basis for a similar output." And... What is it you think you do?

I heard about this as well. I think maybe this is what is mistaken as subconscious. I think it's the "dogs in a trench" coat situation. But there is actually some amount of deep communication. Maybe even just hormonal/ emotional.

Sometimes in life I'll get a feeling that's origin is not immediately apparent to me. After some focus I can trace its origins to the intersection of two competing desires or something. That I understand. But other times.... Even with long sessions of meditation, it feels like the explanation for some feelings do not reside within my own consciousness.

I've begun to try and listen for other consciousness and understand them. I've gotten a sort of impression of a personality and when we're both happy, I feel a sort of harmony. When they're upset I feel a pull towards chaos. Doing something can be as simple as getting a drink they like or as complex as avoiding a certain social situation.

Or it's all in my imagination, lol. If so I'll enjoy the placebo.

I've worked office jobs at a few large corporations. I've noticed they like to lay off a department, see how long the other departments can get by splitting up the work, then when everything is on fire they open up hiring. But every now and then... they let go of a department and everything just keeps working. It's a strategy that seems to work, unfortunately.

I listed reasons people usually cite and why I don't think they're a good reason to assume there won't be progress. I agree it's over-hyped today, because people are excited about the obvious potential tomorrow. I think it's foolish to hide behind that as if it's proof that it doesn't have potential.

Let's say you're right and we hit a wall for 50 years on any progress on AI. There's nothing magical about the human brain's ability to make logical decisions on observations and learning. It's going to happen. And our current system of economy that attributes a person's value to their labor will be in deep shit when it happens. It could take a century to make an appropriate change here. We're already way behind, even with a set back to AI.

I think it's funny when people complain about AI learning from copyright. AI's express goal is to be similar to a human consciousness. Have you ever talked to a human who's never watched a TV show, or a movie, or read a book from this century? An AI that's not aware of those things would be like a useless alien to us.

If people just want to use legal hangups to stop AI, fair play. But that plan is doomed, infinite brainpower is just too valuable. Copyright isn't there to protect the little guy, that was the original 28 year law. Its current form was lobbied by corporations to stifle competition. And they'll dismantle it (or ignore it) in a heartbeat once it suits them.

Yeah people think AI is what sci-fi movies sold them. Hyper intelligent - hyper aware sentient beings capable of love or blah blah blah. We'll get there, but corps don't need that. In fact that's the part they don't want. They need a mindless drone to replace the 80% of their workers doing brainless jobs.

Yikes

And there's no reason to believe that it is. I know there's been speculation about model collapse and limits of available training data. But there's also been advancements like training data efficiency and autonomous agents. Your response seems to ignore the massive amounts of progress we've seen in the space.

Also the computer, internet, and smart phone were based on decades of research and development. Doesn't mean they didn't take off and change everything.

The fact that you're saying AI hit walls in the past and now we're here, is a pretty good indication that progress is guaranteed.

But the fact that this tech really kicked off just three years ago and is already threatening so many jobs, is pretty telling. Not only will LLMs continue to get better, but they're a big step towards AGI and that's always been an existential crisis we knew was coming. This is the the time to start adapting, quick.

I mean, some people genuinely don't get it. If you've got a good answer, give it.

Gamers: Where's my game? Why do you subject your developers to crunch? Why is it so expensive? Why don't you pay your developers more?

Consumers these days have so much entitlement. I understand not wanting to be tricked with advertising or wanting a safe product, without toxic chemicals or whatnot.

But at the end of the day, assuming that's the case, someone should be able to make whatever they want and charge whatever they want. If no one buys it, they're a bad business person. The end. But lately I've seen so many people doing things like starting witch hunts to go after makers of something they don't like. Or trying to strongarm a company into changing a product by holding their reputation for ransom. Or deciding as a community on an idealized business model and punishing companies that don't use it.

And the gaming community is the worst of them. Like if you don't like multiplayer games, fine. Don't shit on a game for like 5 paragraphs just to finally say, "See? RDR2 did just fine, we should be making single player games. Anyway I didn't actually play this and neither should you. 0/5 stars."

Like bro, this team worked really hard to make a game they believed in. They didn't have to run it by you. If you don't like it play something else. But people will claim you have no right to have created what you did, the audacity that you thought you could is appalling, and frankly... You're an immoral person to work for money. Like damn guys, chill. Nobody has to make you games. I don't go see Starry Night and write a letter to Van Gogh's estate like, "I'm not a fan of blue"

Oh I know right? I have shared this sentiment with other... lemmings? It feels like people think more about actually fostering meaningful conversations. Anyway, thanks for your thought provoking comments!

Actually you may have had the correct interpretation, they said as a Roku TV replacement. I read it as a way to fix their existing Roku TV.

Ah, I think I misunderstood. My mistake. I would make the point that I think many consumers would actually prefer the cheap ad riddled version of many services. Like, many streaming services people complain about having ads, have an ad free tier they're unwilling to pay for. But I assume you'd make the argument that's from the poverty created by the other problems within capitalism. Which is a valid criticism.

Capitalism, has a bunch of problems. Those are some of them. Frankly I think it's due to collapse and I hope we'll be better for it. But Roku? Monopoly? They're a mediocre company making a possibility short sighted decision. This is capitalism working as intended. Don't buy it if you don't like it.

If you don't like capitalism call out real problems, because this just sounds like you'll take anything that looks bad and blame it on capitalism. Which weakens the overall argument against it, IMO.

Is that how you think the free market is supposed to work? People don't get to decide how companies operate. They have every right to create a shitty product. As long as there's room for competition to punish them for that bad decision.