I can execute a TAS speed run of any game I want in a couple clicks. So why do speedrunners still exist then if they can never hope to match TAS?

I can open Stockfish and absolutely destroy any human I want in chess. So why do people still play chess then?

I can get ChatGPT to write a good response to your comment in mere moments. So why am I still typing?

A few months after being defeated by AlphaGo, Lee Sedol retired from profession Go. He said, "Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated." And, "As a professional Go player, I never want to play this kind of match again."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Sedol

That seems more like a testament to the intensity of someone who does X to be the "best" at it, rather than someone who does X for the fun of it. Go became more than just a game to him -- it was his identity.

For myself, I don't like to play online Go against humans, because I hate to lose. Instead, I play against a computer with a difficulty rating of around 1-3 dan, and whenever things start going badly for me I just undo moves and try again. Sometimes I ask the computer for advice on what move to make. My experience of Go is that I always win against a player who is much better than me. I find it pretty satisfying.

And yet there are millions of people that play Go who will never be anywhere close to as good as Lee and continue to play it after he quit.

It seems he based his ego on the idea of being the very best Go player, instead of merely being the best human Go player.

> So why am I still typing?

So you don't have to give OpenAI your phone number, hah.

"So why am I still typing?"

Because ChatGPT is currently overloaded by users.

Who says that person will work for you, or that it will be free?

They're talking about the AI.

I'm not sure if this is what the commenter meant, but I am vanishingly unlikely to own the AI. Even if I write the AI I'm unlikely to own it. The training costs are too large and even if I did train a working model, AI can be duplicated, and there's little reason to use anything but the best. The scary thing about AI to me is finally turning intellectual labor into a pure process of capital. You put more energy and capital in, you get more out, no need or room for humans anywhere in that loop. Now of course we're a long way away from that. There will be room for humans for a long time, but it's scary how much additional power it will give to capital. How much less the interests of ordinary people will mater

That's actually a great thing in the long run. Money will be spent on compute, compute will generate data by generative models + validation models, then data will be compacted into a new model. Models and data can be copied, money can't.

If it works with just electricity and doesn't require manual human work it is a game changer. No longer limited by human resources, we can scale research in any field and improve everyone's life much faster.

AlphaGo is an example of such an approach. I don't think models will be locked down, they will probably be like go bots in recent years, about 50% of them open sourced. As long as there is an open dataset, the models can be replicated.

People start out with a brain, they don't tend to start out with money, electricity and in the absence of and incentive it's hard to imagine society doing much for the downtrodden. I think empathy exists and it can be strong, but we've had racism, bigotry, and genocide all while the people we were killing had every potential to be another Einstein.

Also why would you think the weights for models will be open source. That isn't even true now for the most complicated models (gpt3 and the like) and certainly isn't for all the models running right now in production using proprietary datasets. As long as keeping it secret makes it more likely that you (or your models) can generate the next better model it doesn't seem very likely we're converge on them all being public

> Now of course we're a long way away from that.

I am no longer confident of that.

The far future where we can ask an AI something like make me money, or improve humanity seems pretty far off still. Not for sure. Change can accelerate, but probably under 2% over my lifetime (which is still way higher than I would have put it a few years ago). Until we get there the question will be how humans can better leverage the tools. We won't be in quite as dire problems because the limiting factor will probably still be humans minds to do the increasingly small set of things the AI is bad at

This confuses AI training with inference. Training a machine learning model is expensive, complex, and requires data. Once trained, inference is cheap in terms of compute. A trained model is trivial to leak so hopefully nobody is putting much stock in their models staying secret.

Not to mention there are techniques by which training can be avoided entirely like transfer learning and others.

Inference is not cheap -- SOTA LLMs require 100s of gigabytes of VRAM for inference.

Apple has made a sample project available for Stable Diffusion that can run on both macOS and iOS.[1] The sample code is here.[2]

I'll concede that Stable Diffusion may or may not meet the threshold for SOTA but still think this is indicative of inference eventually becoming supported for any compelling LLM on consumer-grade hardware. The possibilities for creative tools are just too compelling.

[1] https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/stable-diffusion-...

[2] https://github.com/apple/ml-stable-diffusion

I know, I was just using their metaphor.

This! Perfectly stated!

> for free

That seems very naive.

Any prediction about AI seems like a naive one. 50 years ago we seemed to have everything backwards, who is to say that we're any better now?

This is not a prediction about AI, but a realistic guess how it will be used in the future. Based on how the benefits of automation and productivity increases have been shared with the general populace in the past. Hint: they mostly haven't been shared. Instead we have billionaires whose money disappears into offshore tax havens, all the while civilian infrastructure and society in general crumbles.

Yes, definitely that but also it's not even a guess, they said they were going to monetize it. But yeah, if it's not being released as commons like free software is then one is wise to assume the capital is being created for profit if not outright rent seeking (which I think is most likely in this particular case.)

That's only important if you value the destination more than the journey. In spite of the fact that there will come a day when an artificial intelligence can play the piano and any possible musical piece superbly, for me the act of piano playing itself is where I derive my enjoyment.

It may be in the future it will become more important to focus on activities and hobbies where one's fulfillment comes intrinsically from the action itself, not in the output that is produced.

I used to cheat at Age of Empires 2. It was fun, but eventually very stale to empty all the single player campaign maps with a swarm of cobra cars. Getting better at playing without cheats is way more satisfying.