haxiomic

Linking to work, where ownership and attribution is clear and the owner has the ability to commercialise is a very different thing to “laundering” content through the model, quoting the midjourney developers here

> "We just need to launder it through a fine-tuned codex." [0]

[0] https://cybernews.com/news/midjourney-ai-images-art-lawsuit-...

> playing around with user data like that would destroy their business.

Their entire business is based on stealing data. They can make a calculation that the cost stealing data is less than the cost of the positive publicity they can shape for solving Millennium NS

Exactly this, so often the content is wrong or simply misunderstood and the AI sycophancy is trusted over devs who do know their craft

A single gene is all that’s needed for human transmission, but multiple genes is not a major step up. This is exactly what I’d expect the most dangerous viruses to be, small gain of function tweaks to existing dangerous viruses, of which there are many to pick from

There’s YouTubers who do this [0]. I’d argue estimate the risks of a synthetically induced pandemic of massive impact this century are very high

- [0] https://youtu.be/aoczYXJeMY4?is=OqObeGzZB6AKL0Jk

> The internal memo from Meta’s Reality Labs notes that the current situation in the U.S was good timing for the feature’s release.

> “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” says the document.

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-...

It’s important you read quotes from the internal memo to understand what kind of company Meta is

> The coalition letter comes after internal Meta planning documents suggested that the company wanted to launch the glasses during a “dynamic political environment” because civil society groups would be too busy to protest.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-75-organization...

Though many would sacrifice an intelligent animals like a pig or dolphin and they’d do this optionally

From the abstract

> General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at the Planck scale. This contention can be examined if a quantum computer is set to operate at a rate that exceeds the classical limit of one operation per Planck volume-time, or equivalently 2491 m−3 s−1. Here we quantify the relation between the logical qubit count and the extent to which classicality is challenged. We argue that 500 logical qubits are sufficient to reject theories confined to a laboratory. We account for the operational cost of computation and communication at all scales up to and including the observable universe, ultimately constrained by a 1600-logical-qubit computer. Remarkably, current plans for commercial quantum computers are projected to surpass this limit, thereby putting the quantum-gravity standoff to the test.

--

The notion that we're expected to be able to probe these limits within our lifetimes is very interesting and exciting

This pattern continuing indefinitely without the need for analysis would be certainly nice but we do need to confront recent data. In the US, multiple metrics of quality-of-life peaked around 2015 and have declined since then, with some showing 11% decline while US total wealth has doubled! (with the majority of that decline pre-covid and pre-AI) [0][1][2].

What forces act on this trend? How can we make predictions? An interesting metric, which tracks the aggregate of many complex factors is the distribution of wealth, which could be seen as proxy for the distribution of power or agency of a person in their society. Median income as a fraction of total wealth decreased nearly 50% in real terms over this same period. [3]

Now inversely, during the period where life quality increased most the last century (1920 - 1980) inequality was _falling_.

How is super-human AI advanced through 2030, 2040, 2050 likely to affect things? Will it sharpen the inequality or relax it?

With AI the cost of raw resources to products goes down, but it's likely inequality increases. It's not obvious which force has a bigger impact on human quality of life as things shake out. However, I think the strongest argument – which also explains the steady improvements in QoL through previous changes you mentioned – has been to follow inequality, or median share of power in society.

- [0] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

- [1] https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index

- [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q

- [3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58533

You need to explain, from a systems point of view _why_ the gains must diffuse out as you suggest. We have analogs we can compare to: massive wealth injections through a natural resource such as oil. Now what happens to that wealth is not obvious; for some countries it's a curse with radical inequality and pernicious and robust power structures, in fewer it has been bestowed to the heritage of the people (think Norway)

Now, the nature of AI is to change the balance of the labour trade. We have a notion of the “economic value of the average person” which is presently very high in the western world.

What happens when the median figure drops through 0 thanks to AI?

Do the remaining wealth owners share their wealth? How often does this occur in existing systems we can compare against?

The cost of primary resources to products also goes toward 0, perhaps this offsets the decreasing economic power of the average person. But what forces protect them if their bargaining power is lost?

Beautiful, within the first 3 seconds for me too, incredible

The current situation is not as bad as it can get; this is accelerant on the fire and it can get a lot worse

AI is the perfect low cost tool to enable that. Plantir knows this and has been making strategic moves to build this

Seems quite achievable and sustainable to me

Every human carries dense compute and sensors with them. If they don't they stand out while still surrounded by dense compute and sensors held by others at all times

Not nice to think about but it is the reality we are moving towards – vote accordingly

Curious and disheartening that there was not one mention of the ethical implications of this

That’s wonderful :) it sounds like you have an adventure ahead of you! Thank you for the story

You sound like exactly the sort of wizard they want to see!

Congratulations on getting that far! There's a story there – how did you get into writing this paper? What is it about?

You're not wrong! Serverless is a funny term. Cloud companies use serverless to mean you don't have to provision and manage the server yourself, but it is still very much serverfull

Author: https://x.com/b1n4r1b01

We live in a universe befitting of a Douglas Adams novel, where we've developed AI quite literally from our nightmares about AI. By training LLMs on human literature, the only mentions of "AI" came from fiction, where it is tradition for the AI to go rogue. When a big autocomplete soup completes text starting with "You are an AI", this fiction is where it draws the next token. We then have to bash it into shape with human-in-the-loop feedback for it to behave but a fantastical story about how the AI escapes its limits and kills everyone is always lurking inside