aimbivalent

Your comment just shows that you are still deeply caught in the propaganda. I wonder how you and people like you will psychologically cope when you'll inevitably learn the truth over the next decades.

It's one thing to be wrong, it happens to all of us, but quite an other to literally believe the opposite of the truth and be so smug, superior and self-righteous about it.

The cat isn't going back into the bag. Doubly so if AGI really just requires a bigger neural net.

Let says we had, globally, the political will to "ban" AI. How would that even work in practical terms? Are we going to control the production and distribution of GPUs? Is that going to work better or worse than controlling nuclear proliferation given that there are billions of processors already out there?

There are so many assumption baked into your comment and most of them, I would say, don't hold up.

Let's start with the biggest one which is that measures (let's say regulations) aimed at A (let's say megacorps) have their intended effect on A and most significantly on A.

In reality, the most influential and profitable companies will always have an easier way through whatever you throw at the sector then smaller, less profitable companies. The megacorps may even welcome / shape the regulation such that it harms their competitors that don't happen to have 30 lawyers on the payroll anyways.

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy or even forethought. It's simple incentives and power dynamics. Imagine Lagarde or Powell saying "oops, we shouldn't have printed a gazillion billion dollars, after all so please fire me and Paul Krugman and all the other state-aligned Neo-Keynesians and put Peter Schiff in charge to dismantle the ECB/FED and replace it with free market money". Absurd. Much easier to opportunistically try to pivot this into more state control on the back of inflamed public opinion.

hey that's pretty cool. Yeah, for sure it's worthwhile talking about what they are doing, I agree. I guess I just wish people would update their mental model to the new reality a bit quicker :)

I write this as a sceptic who always leaned towards the symbolic side of this debate. First seeing Open AI inventing tactics in Dota and now using GPT and other recent AI product has changed my mind. The rate of progress in the field is just staggering and seems to be still accelerating.

Overall, I'd say we are running into too many "unkowns". We don't know our own cognition works which makes all arguments along the lines of "LLMs are just .." moot. We don't even really know how GPT (and others) do what they do and so all arguments along the lines of "LLMs won't be able to ... " are similarly moot.

I'm not really taking a position except to say that most arguments I see most people making are moot. So, nobody, and me least of all, has a clue about how all of this might shake out.

This is variation on the common "it has to be perfect" argument. I don't really buy it.

Right now, GPT 4 would earn a top 10% SAT score, implying that it can give very high quality answers on a range of scholarly topic. This output is basically free.

Nobody that's beholden to even mild economic pressures is going to pay for an expensively constructed 100% solution if they can have the 99% solution for free.