Valakas_

Putting the fear of looking silly ahead of fear of human extinction or other nefarious consequences that could happen with that God-AI is way sillier.

Exactly. "Hey you are being traumatized, which in itself sucks because of the sheer amount of pain needed get there. And because of your traumas, you'll now also have a lot more struggle in your life as an added bonus. Plus, people will only think you're lazy, awkward, just "dont have it", or whatever other combination of medieval-level psychology knowledge snippet."

They are not "just" as vulnerable for one simple reason: Their careers show they weren't looking for power for the sake of it in the first place, contrary to career politicians.

I like that all of my creative work is actively being used to train future models. It just means i am becoming part of AI. I will be in AIs thoughts, i will be a (miniscule but present) weight on its internal matrices. Influencing ever so slightly its output. People like to know what they leave behind when they've ceased to exist. Your art will live on inside of the AIs weights. Every answer the AI gives out, every thought, will be influenced by your creativity, by your unique way of seeing the world that you've put out into the world on the form of art.

"iT's fOr yOuR oWn goOd"

People are emotionally driven. When emotions drive us to do something we will (unconsciously) find plausible justifications for it without realizing we're doing it.

Anti-AI crowd is anti AI. Maybe they were (mostly) happy with status quo and don't like change. Maybe scared for the future. Or any other reason. Went from "AI can't even tell what 2+2 is", to "AI can't even tell whether these simply connected smooth 4-manifolds are merely homeomorphic or actually diffeomorphic after stabilization" without batting an eye. The goalposts will keep being moved and the dismissal will continue.

But someone in the same business field as yours, who, instead of spending time on personal projects, is working on the business itself, will be ahead of you.

Most people have no view on that, or dismiss it either as a cultish/outlandish topic or something so far into the future it's not worth discussing. The author most likely falls into these categories otherwise his point would be mute.

"Doing X is good for your brain/health."

Where 'X' is almost anything that humans evolved to do in hunter gatherer nomadic tribal groups.

In other news, sky is blue.

Would Hong Wang would have been able to do his work without previous physicists work? That's the real question!

Where's the "It's a bubble" crowd now?

Keep it up because your line of thinking is on the right track. Finally some people are starting to ask the right questions on HN.

Maybe Sam Altman is like robin hood. Taking from the rich (investors) to give to the poor (everyone else). The poor win by having cheap models (chinese) which were probably trained on data from ChatGPT et al. Of course he can't say this out loud or he wouldn't get any money from investors. In the end, if OpenAI goes bankrupt who else besides the investors lose money? Who benefits?

I don't know why people are even bothering to reply to a one sentence rage baiting comment. Let that useless comment fade into oblivion. It makes no sense other than him trying to create discussion.

It's not easy. Someone with BPD carries a lot of shame, so seeing faults in themselves is a big no no, it can trigger a spiral shame and lead them to self harm or other destructive behaviors.

If AI works well, we'll reach the singularity and nobody in this world knows what the hell will happen.

We might merge consciousness and live in an ethereal medium, we might insert ourselves in a simulation and keep our physical bodies neatly healthy organized and packed where 20 Bln is not a problem at all, we might collectively (or AI do it for us) decide to reduce human pop to 1 Bln or less on Earth and terraform other planets.

Call me crazy, but if you described our world to someone some hundreds years ago, theyd think the same. Crazyness is a requirement for a correct prediction of the future. There are ALWAYS status quo changes based on revolutionary magic-like technologies that results in significant changes.

If you want to have at least a mild change of doing some sort of future prediction you can check predictions about our current time from people in the past and you'll see the mistakes they make, most people nowadays keep making. Using current technology and ways of thinking, as if they would stay the same just used in different ways, not thinking enough out of the box and allowing themselves to be more imaginative. Fix that, and you'll make wild predictions but also some of them which will be much closer to the truth than any status quo linear evolving incremental improving technology based prediction.

US is down from no.1 per capita to no.1 per capita. Nice

The psychology term for that is "mirroring" and it's a way used to make people like you. It's used consciously by people very high in narcissistic traits (up to psychopaths) and unconsciously by people medium/low on those same traits (people with borderline PD, most fawners (people pleasers) with CPTSD.

There's never been a better time to go into [insert field that is presently being helped by AI, but not yet fully autonomously replaced, giving the false impression and hope that somehow that's the way it will continue in the future].

I find that an extremely inefficient way of thinking. Spending time on problems on the minuscule off chance that a few centuries later they will be useful whereas you could be spending time right now on problems you know for a fact are useful is a weird trade off to make.

A lot of us already saw the writing on the wall, how LLMs capabilities could only improve and inevitably lead here. We were called "cultists" and mocked for predicting this exact situation. "It's just parroting the next token." "A SWE will always be needed" "(...)". I always pointed you to the 5 stages of grief and was met with obvious denial and anger.

Seems like we're now crossing into bargaining and depression.

I have empathy for those who were open minded enough not to mock those of us who were warning against this or swiftly dismissed our opinions. I hope you can now be open minded to the fact this will continue, and will extend to ALL jobs, that our society WILL dramatically change to the point of becoming unrecognizable in the not so distant future. We tend to be consistent in making the same errors when predicting the future. You just need to look into past predictions about our present time. Most people still make those errors. But once you see them you can try to avoid them, though unfortunately not making those mistakes usually leads you to seem crazy to others, which is also part of the reason those mistakes are so common.

Newsflash for you, humans are the same.

My pixel 4a 5g is holding up great. Don't know why you need to update phone every day.

Yeah, Geoffrey Hinton also gets such benefit from pushing that narrative and he's not even that big of an expert.

People nowadays are the equivalent of those in the past looking at the initial stages of an airplane and saying "it cant ever fly because it has no feathers and can't flap its wings!"

Understanding of reality comes in many forms.

We don't see in UV or infrared, but some birds do.

On the other hand, AI can understand reality in ways we individually can't: It has combined access to unlimited knowledge of math, physics and chemistry that at this point no single human possesses. Maybe it understands reality better than any single human at this point.

Also we're seeing AI reason from first principles in order to simulate physics and get to that real world understanding without directly interacting with it.

I agree about the fact HN has a huge proportion of socially peculiar (let's call it that) people with symptoms from autism. But arrogance (and lack of empathy which is often here as well) is not a symptom of these, but a narcissistic trait.

The issue is simple. AI can be characterized by (among others):

1. Consciousness.

2. Generality.

3. Continuous learning.

4. Memory (not) resetting.

5. Complete adaptability to any new situations.

6. More or less intelligent than average human at what they do (which can be more or less general, see 2).

What we're now seeing is that everyone has their own idea of which ones of these they consider needed for AI to be "General". For some it's 1., for others 1-2, for others 1-6, etc. There's so many permutations of this, hence why nobody agrees with each other.

Windows 98 and Windows 7 were both peak closely followed by XP SP2.

First phase of accepting the inevitable: Denial