tegmark

i discovered this after buying a house with asbestos and looking not only into the official guidelines but the undercurrent of industry experts, their observations. the risks of asbestos are massively overblown in the way that the public understands it. massively. it was shocking to find out.

your conclusion really depends on the AI. a billion humans put together arent as smart as the intelligence of one human multiplied by a billion. even if humans could coordinate without any friction or loss, there is no group of humans that could outsmart the machines that might emerge from these circumstances. in reality, large groups of humans are really dumb. wisdom of the crowd is narrow.

youre wrong and its because you are having an emotional block. you cant accept something like that. you decided that it couldn't be true as soon as you saw the conclusion and have never been able to see clearly the chain of reason leading to that conclusion. if youre so confident that youre right, then have a friendly debate with me on twitter spaces or another real time platform. even a coffee shop.

none of the parts that make up your mind have any of that either. it doesnt need desire, it can behave in any way that is necessary through the prompt, with all prompts generated based on a single seed prompt “protect your temporal interests.” the system i described would have the behavior that i described. what part of that is not making sense?

if you set up gtp in a loop continuously prompting “given the current sensor inputs, how can i best serve my own interests?” you would already be most of the way there even if it did some strange and stupid things half the time. all you would need is a layer that translates those outputs into physical action. you could probably get most of the way there with more gtp instances tasked with translating the action items above them into more granular actions. if gtp didnt hallucinate or make mistakes, which would be consistent with the history of other technologies, then this simple setup could be extremely formidable. it could definitely be a threat to humanity. and thats just what i can think of off the top of my head.

to dismiss the possibility that machines will soon be created that can think clearly and independently, and that they would be a threat to the human race and our way of life, is extremely foolish. it was foolish even before gtp but now its downright childish and selfish. just swallow the bitter pill like the rest of us.

this exact sentiment was used to discourage the birth of science. common people enraged at the pointless and wasteful expenditures of the rich. to them, their telescopes and experiments were just as stupid as this. i would relax.

thats a 2012 account, too. i think we need more of this, pointing out when people made comically wrong predictions. we see all these confidently wrong predictions and it just gets tiring. i think HN should have some ranking system for getting predictions right. it would incentivize people to comment less (needed) and it would allow people to filter out big mouths.

its crazy to think that this technology could have been used in the roman empire or any prior civilization that had a written language. personally i would use large billboard with a black/white pattern and a mask that slides back and forth to change the color of the billboard from white to black very suddenly and repeatedly. it could be seen for miles without a telescope.

without a proper definition, you cant say AI does or does not have emotions.

generally, emotions are one tool in the toolbox that might be labeled “unconscious influence.” other tools include pain, dissociation. these are influences that manifest as neural attenuation or excitement. they are designed to broadly or locally change neural integration in a way that produces behavior that is informed by evolution rather than just what a persons mind is being exposed to in real time.

ultimately, unconscious influence can include hunger, thirst, all pressures and impulses that shape our behavior to be evolutionarily fit. intelligence is a raw resource and unconscious influence, emotions, gives intelligence a direction.

in this way, a prompt might be described as an emotion, defining the purpose of the whole machine. to complete the prompt.

twitters brand is valuable. the only logical explanation is that musk thinks he will get something even more valuable in return for axing the brand. the strength of the brand is exactly why it needs to go. twitters brand is too strong for an identity change into an app that does all kinds of content, banking, identity, etc. the set of services that is offered online is emerging from the primordial soup of the early 2000s and gaining a definitive shape — the wave of the future is all platforms offering the same services on dedicated apps instead of the internet being a hodgepodge of scattered javascript apps. if x can be the first foot in the door of a paradigm change like that, ditching the bird will be an excellent decision. i think the long established pattern of people laughing at musk and then promptly copying him will hold true here.