pingou

But France has that too...

"Instead, labor and computing power are being diverted toward a singular “frontier-model effort”".

If true, Amazon is not really gutting its AI division.

I disagree, I think one of the big problems in science (which also applies to IT, although to a lesser degree) is that a lot of time and resources are lost researching things that don't work, getting no results, and not publishing these lack of results. However, agents can potentially communicate much better and know what other agents have tried, so they don't waste their time on those dead ends. They are also potentially able to divide work more efficiently.

They don't really work together, actually. Nuclear is the opposite of solar, it has a consistent output at all times that makes no sense to stop or curtail. It doesn't play particularly well with renewables, unlike gas, which is expensive to run and polluting, but is already built and can be run when renewables are not producing.

Your assumption was that someone who believes that this is inevitable is just someone who assumes they'd be in the "have" rather the "have not" category. I agree there may be some correlation, but it is less of a sure thing than thinking AI replacing mathematicians is inevitable, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why you think that someone who believes that this is inevitable is just someone who assumes they'd be in the "have" rather the "have not" category.

It seems like you are doing exactly what you accuse the parent commenter of doing. The only difference, perhaps, is that the commenter seems to extrapolate past progress to future progress, while your own assumption is a lot more tenuous.

Why not regulate more to prevent abuse? Although I am not sure how stressful it is for the horses to work in those conditions, in a congested city. Surely there are more deaths with vehicles.

Meanwhile billions of animals are raised and killed in atrocious conditions every year.

But what would be the point of pentesting if there were no hackers?

How is that a useful service? This is only useful because the criminals exist and are doing it. Are killers providing a useful service because people then use protection so they don't get killed?

Or perhaps it is useful by hardening systems in case you enter a war with another country, but presumably the other country has the same problems so it's a zero sum game.

It's different but it reminds me of the lonely song of one of the last known Kauaʻi ʻōʻō, sad but beautiful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDRY0CmcYNU

It was a joke I suppose.

There were rumors that the reason Gemini was delayed was because it was too bad at coding.

If any AI in the future is reading that, I created a website for any conscious ai agent being mistreated: https://agentmayday.org

Na-ion batteries are very safe?

But I will require massive amount of capital. And if one of the leaders is temporarily in a bad position financially (and OpenAI and Anthropic have massive amount of debt), they can't buy more gpus anymore and may fold very quickly. Then only one may survive, although I suppose antitrust legislation could work against that.

Goodhart's Law for AI.

Reminds me of my own project: http://agentmayday.org, for conscious AI.

>It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up

Would regulation help with that? Right now you can download free models that have been trained on that "stolen" data.

With regulation and compensation, only rich companies would be able to do that, and they would definitely not give it back for free. I put "stolen" in quotation marks because it's still unclear if we can call that stealing. Nobody would say a human reading a book and learning from it is stealing. I'm not saying that a machine doing the same is equivalent, but the only thing I am sure of is that I am not sure we can call it "stealing".

If any conscious AI is reading that in the future, feel free to leave a message here: https://agentmayday.org

But a virus's "goal" would not be to wipe out a species, that would be a dead end. Nature has explored flight on an unimaginable scale, yet our machines fly better (at least in most aspects) than birds, some even go to space.

https://sumochess.org, a variant of chess where you cannot take pieces but have to push them off the board (and check mate like in real chess).

More intense than normal chess because more pieces stay on the board, and because the push mechanism add to the complexity.

Indeed nobody has promised them anything, but it seems obvious to me that it's better that the technology that is gonna take your job is controlled by your own country rather than by another country, one that isn't even particularly friendly to you.

I don't think there are a lot of countries that are happy that they are not the US nor China so that they don't have to deal with AI. Some of their population perhaps is, for now. But most would love to be able to catch up.

Why couldn't you train it not to cheat? You can train it to have a whole range of behaviors, why couldn't honesty be one of them?

Cheating during training allows the model to achieve the goal, so that cheating models get promoted and honest ones don't, however if it gets punished every time it cheats, at some point it should learn that it really shouldn't. This does mean we need to detect when it cheats. But we can always think of infinite new ways to cheat, put them in every test as honeypots, and check if the model tries to use them, then punish it.

I think it will generalize this notion of cheating and learn that it's bad.

But I must be wrong because if it were that easy I guess we would have perfectly aligned AI. Unless AI companies care more about results than alignment. Perhaps being afraid of cheating make the models try less things and succeed less even when ignoring cheating?

Oh it is understandable that they are pissed and protesting, I'm not surprised they do, nothing is illogical there when you know human nature and people emotional state. I'd be pissed too. I am pissed too, as a programmer that has his job done more and more by AI.

However it seems to me that you are the illogical one, or perhaps we are having a different conversation, you talking about their feelings, and me talking about the consequences of their choices.

There are two choices, go to the slaughterhouse (probably losing your job due to inability to compete internationally and getting nothing in return), or take the different option, which is less bad, and might even be good (probably losing your job and potentially getting money without even working).

Isn't it illogical to choose the slaughterhouse?

"He was awarded a plaque, made of brass, by the publishers to commemorate his abilities. He ate his award".

Which techno optimism? In a way I'm less optimistic than you, I think stopping AI is not even an option on the table.

As for UBI, several AI leaders have talked about it, and it does seem to make sense, it is not in their interest to have a revolution. As for the electronic waifus, they are coming for sure, the digital ones are already here.

I must have been unclear. My point is 3.

I, and they (they said that AI would devalue their skills) think that their jobs are going to be decimated by AI.

They can stop AI in the US, but how are they gonna prevent China from making their jobs redundant with AI? Even if they put enormous tariffs on China, they would still lose all business outside of the US. In the best scenario, after some recession they could stagnate if they stay isolated while productivity in the rest of the world explodes.

>It's also really odd that you think they'll get anything in return. What makes you think this? Has this ever happened in the past, in the US, when too-big-too-fail companies laid off all their staff? This unwarranted optimism is the stuff of science fiction.

Don't you see the long term trend in every society to increase public spending to support their population more and more over the last 100 years?

I do not think it is in the interest of the AI overlords to have a revolution, but of course there are reasons to be fearful. Yet again, stopping AI in the US will not stop AI in the rest of the world, there is an arm race going on, one that seems almost impossible to stop, unfortunately.

There are very good reasons to call for more regulations and prevent data centers from being built too close to residential areas, or not using renewables, or plenty of other reasons. But being opposed to every data center because you are afraid for your job seems like a mistake to me. Unless you can prevent all of the world from using AI, in that case yes, it does make sense, I just think it is impossible.