How did worry about AI safety become a tech bro signifier and not the opposite? It’s clear that the world as we know it only has a few years left but people keep their heads in the sand because they can’t really grasp the idea of exponential progress. Your mental model of ai is probably something like the 2024 freemium ChatGPT models that couldn’t count the r’s in strawberry. But these things get better by the month and remember the anthropological rule that it’s impossible to un-invent something. If you express this in cultured company though they’ll look at you like you’re some sort of thielite San franciscan. Why?
Anonymous :
34 days ago :
No.10697
>>10698
>>10697
the important part isn’t really the improvements themselves it’s the improvement in the speed of improvement. 2nd derivative like Reagan talked about. eg: it was like 2 years for AI images to figure out fingers, but we got from there to basically photorealistic video in far less time. But if you’re interested in the actual capabilities the “system cards” Anthropic publishes on their site are informative. They have benchmarks on bioweapons, cyber warfare, subjective experience, etc, that change with each new release
What are the key advances in the last year? Claude Code has gotten better, right? And it solved a maths theorem...?
>>10697
What are the key advances in the last year? Claude Code has gotten better, right? And it solved a maths theorem...?
the important part isn’t really the improvements themselves it’s the improvement in the speed of improvement. 2nd derivative like Reagan talked about. eg: it was like 2 years for AI images to figure out fingers, but we got from there to basically photorealistic video in far less time. But if you’re interested in the actual capabilities the “system cards” Anthropic publishes on their site are informative. They have benchmarks on bioweapons, cyber warfare, subjective experience, etc, that change with each new release
Anonymous :
34 days ago :
No.10699
>>10700
>>10699
Very eloquent comment but I think you have a serious lack of imagination if those are the only consequences you can envision. and of course it’d activate your “crazy radar”; the existence of human level artificial intelligence should already have done that!
Like many things, AI safety got ruined by the stench of spergery; in this case all that Berkeley basilisk bullshit. People haven't "updated their priors" because life hasn't changed that much for the chattering class. Ultimately we keep Graeberjobs or we don't. I don't see much evidence for them going away entirely. (Yes the pie will continue to shrink.)
>I'm very specific when expressing my grievances and everyone listening understands that I'm talking about [the future of art and culture]
Not that many people care about art or culture.
>[the political consequences of on-demand zone flooding]
People can't really get much more entrenched (this is actually the exponentiation I'm most worried about right now) thanks to continued Blueanon acquiescence/whatever the fuck brown Hitlerites are getting on short-form. I know AI has contributed to this but I really think it's a matter of a full tank vs. 1 or 2 used gallons.
IMO the more things change the more they stay the same. I could have my head in the sand but "the world as we know it only has a few years left" is never gonna get great responses because it activates people's crazy radars
Anonymous :
34 days ago :
No.10700
>>10705
>>10700
I'm open to your imagination - I agree mine is limited - but you have to be more specific. People are responding to you as a tech bro because framings like "the existence of human level artifical intelligence" are mostly made by tech bros. Chess fell 30 years ago, Madden 10. I wouldn't have a degree without Mathematica. Rasterization followed the same curve you described, what was the last game you bought? Was it fun?
>>10699
Like many things, AI safety got ruined by the stench of spergery; in this case all that Berkeley basilisk bullshit. People haven't "updated their priors" because life hasn't changed that much for the chattering class. Ultimately we keep Graeberjobs or we don't. I don't see much evidence for them going away entirely. (Yes the pie will continue to shrink.)
>I'm very specific when expressing my grievances and everyone listening understands that I'm talking about [the future of art and culture]
Not that many people care about art or culture.
>[the political consequences of on-demand zone flooding]
People can't really get much more entrenched (this is actually the exponentiation I'm most worried about right now) thanks to continued Blueanon acquiescence/whatever the fuck brown Hitlerites are getting on short-form. I know AI has contributed to this but I really think it's a matter of a full tank vs. 1 or 2 used gallons.
IMO the more things change the more they stay the same. I could have my head in the sand but "the world as we know it only has a few years left" is never gonna get great responses because it activates people's crazy radars
Very eloquent comment but I think you have a serious lack of imagination if those are the only consequences you can envision. and of course it’d activate your “crazy radar”; the existence of human level artificial intelligence should already have done that!
Anonymous :
34 days ago :
No.10705
>>10713
>>10705
If any job which doesn’t involve physical interface with the world can be run off a bank of servers in Utah, it doesn’t matter whether the tokens cost thousands of dollars a month as long as it’s cheaper than paying a human being 6 figures a year. No good capitalist is going to hold on to human employees out of sentimentality when there’s that much extra surplus value to vacuum up. So that should have some economic ramifications.
Another one is the fact that AI allows for basically perfect surveillance and maybe even minority-report level prevention if it was actually deployed fully. A couple more Roblox-grown school shooters would probobly give legislators a good enough excuse to do that. There’s also the fact that the internet would become completely unusable (although it’s debatable whether the internet of discreet websites would still be a thing with good enough LLMs) because it would be literally impossible to determine whether someone was a human or robot without some form of ID verification, which would fundamentally change the internet as well. Those things and their downstream effects seem pretty radical, and that’s not even getting into war/government/economy stuff
>>10700
>>10699
Very eloquent comment but I think you have a serious lack of imagination if those are the only consequences you can envision. and of course it’d activate your “crazy radar”; the existence of human level artificial intelligence should already have done that!
I'm open to your imagination - I agree mine is limited - but you have to be more specific. People are responding to you as a tech bro because framings like "the existence of human level artifical intelligence" are mostly made by tech bros. Chess fell 30 years ago, Madden 10. I wouldn't have a degree without Mathematica. Rasterization followed the same curve you described, what was the last game you bought? Was it fun?
I think you’re just expecting way too much from humanities people. They think of things in terms of broad comparisons (to crypto hype, to 2001 and 2007 crashes) and have no interest in the lesswrong thought experiment stuff. There’s also a nonzero chance that they’re right, but I wouldn’t bet on it
Anonymous :
34 days ago :
No.10707
>>10708
>>10707
The image generation AIs do not matter for any of this. They’re architecturally and strategically unrelated to LLMs
>>10712>>10707
I'm getting straight prose from chatGPT whenever I ask it something, and I haven't given it anything to remember. Its responses are generally sensible, though I know what types of questions result in useful output, so I don't use it outside of those cases.
thing is that most people using ai are seeing a downgrade in llm's responses. gpt when it comes to quality of responses has definitely gotten worse. it peaked when it went mainstream and now it gives you emoji slop bullet points slop unless you put a lot of effort into customising it to not do that. it hallucinated when it went mainstream and it still does now. only thing that's gotten better than, to the average person is how much more realistic ai pictures look. meanwhile behind the scenes all these ai companies have already improved the models in ways I can't even imagine and are granting access to it at incomprehensible costs to ultra rich people. that's my two cents on what I think is happening
>>10707
thing is that most people using ai are seeing a downgrade in llm's responses. gpt when it comes to quality of responses has definitely gotten worse. it peaked when it went mainstream and now it gives you emoji slop bullet points slop unless you put a lot of effort into customising it to not do that. it hallucinated when it went mainstream and it still does now. only thing that's gotten better than, to the average person is how much more realistic ai pictures look. meanwhile behind the scenes all these ai companies have already improved the models in ways I can't even imagine and are granting access to it at incomprehensible costs to ultra rich people. that's my two cents on what I think is happening
The image generation AIs do not matter for any of this. They’re architecturally and strategically unrelated to LLMs
>>10707
thing is that most people using ai are seeing a downgrade in llm's responses. gpt when it comes to quality of responses has definitely gotten worse. it peaked when it went mainstream and now it gives you emoji slop bullet points slop unless you put a lot of effort into customising it to not do that. it hallucinated when it went mainstream and it still does now. only thing that's gotten better than, to the average person is how much more realistic ai pictures look. meanwhile behind the scenes all these ai companies have already improved the models in ways I can't even imagine and are granting access to it at incomprehensible costs to ultra rich people. that's my two cents on what I think is happening
I'm getting straight prose from chatGPT whenever I ask it something, and I haven't given it anything to remember. Its responses are generally sensible, though I know what types of questions result in useful output, so I don't use it outside of those cases.
>>10705
>>10700
I'm open to your imagination - I agree mine is limited - but you have to be more specific. People are responding to you as a tech bro because framings like "the existence of human level artifical intelligence" are mostly made by tech bros. Chess fell 30 years ago, Madden 10. I wouldn't have a degree without Mathematica. Rasterization followed the same curve you described, what was the last game you bought? Was it fun?
If any job which doesn’t involve physical interface with the world can be run off a bank of servers in Utah, it doesn’t matter whether the tokens cost thousands of dollars a month as long as it’s cheaper than paying a human being 6 figures a year. No good capitalist is going to hold on to human employees out of sentimentality when there’s that much extra surplus value to vacuum up. So that should have some economic ramifications.
Another one is the fact that AI allows for basically perfect surveillance and maybe even minority-report level prevention if it was actually deployed fully. A couple more Roblox-grown school shooters would probobly give legislators a good enough excuse to do that. There’s also the fact that the internet would become completely unusable (although it’s debatable whether the internet of discreet websites would still be a thing with good enough LLMs) because it would be literally impossible to determine whether someone was a human or robot without some form of ID verification, which would fundamentally change the internet as well. Those things and their downstream effects seem pretty radical, and that’s not even getting into war/government/economy stuff
Anonymous :
7 days ago :
No.10981
>>10996
>>10981
you can’t even call it a frog boiling thing because it’s not happening slowly at all. It’s more like a frog not noticing it’s being blowtorched
the inability to consider the ills, or the wholesale adoption, of AI by the average Joe has successfully buck broken me, and I will just lay low to the ground from here on out
>>10981
the inability to consider the ills, or the wholesale adoption, of AI by the average Joe has successfully buck broken me, and I will just lay low to the ground from here on out
you can’t even call it a frog boiling thing because it’s not happening slowly at all. It’s more like a frog not noticing it’s being blowtorched
Anonymous :
5 days ago :
No.11056
>>11061
>>11056
>AI seems like a really cool area of research that should've stayed within the confines of university campuses and research labs until it was ready to be actually used somewhere.
Doesn't sound too dissimilar to the internet, or other "destructive" technologies.
>>11068>>11056
>What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
yes? what's confusing about that
>exponential progress
There is literally no evidence that AI improvement is exponential. The marketing teams of these companies seem to be borrowing that idea from Moore's Law which applies to hardware (not software) and has been dead since the 2010. Jensen Huang himself stated that he considers it dead. We've also had tons of AI/Automaton scares throughout history, this is not a new concept or grift. Additionally, CNNs have existed for a long time and AlexNet came out almost 15 years ago.
Truthfully, I know next to nothing about AI even though I'm a software engineer, the classes I took in it were before ChatGPT dropped. I truly hate the technology and think it's a step backwards for most of the industry. The actual use cases for it are extremely narrow, the vast majority of people and businesses use computers because data is reliable and 100% reproducible. I can't think of many situations where you need unreliable results that are generated in a proprietary blackbox. Human employees have a lot more value than just the tasks they complete, specifically they can be held accountable for mistakes. What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
I just don't see a world where general AI models are doing anything. Even something as trivial as Flock Cameras are getting insane pushback and violate the constitution. AI seems like a really cool area of research that should've stayed within the confines of university campuses and research labs until it was ready to be actually used somewhere.
>How did worry about AI safety become a tech bro signifier and not the opposite?
Most liberal arts majors aren't in a tech echo-chamber and they don't stand to get 7+ figure payouts from AI taking off. Worrying about "AI safety" is just so stupid the only people who talk about that are either autistic nerds who could be manipulated into believing anything or people who stand to make a profit.
If you think ChatGPT "broke containment" you're probably sitting with sub 90IQ and I'm not even joking.
>>11056
>exponential progress
There is literally no evidence that AI improvement is exponential. The marketing teams of these companies seem to be borrowing that idea from Moore's Law which applies to hardware (not software) and has been dead since the 2010. Jensen Huang himself stated that he considers it dead. We've also had tons of AI/Automaton scares throughout history, this is not a new concept or grift. Additionally, CNNs have existed for a long time and AlexNet came out almost 15 years ago.
Truthfully, I know next to nothing about AI even though I'm a software engineer, the classes I took in it were before ChatGPT dropped. I truly hate the technology and think it's a step backwards for most of the industry. The actual use cases for it are extremely narrow, the vast majority of people and businesses use computers because data is reliable and 100% reproducible. I can't think of many situations where you need unreliable results that are generated in a proprietary blackbox. Human employees have a lot more value than just the tasks they complete, specifically they can be held accountable for mistakes. What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
I just don't see a world where general AI models are doing anything. Even something as trivial as Flock Cameras are getting insane pushback and violate the constitution. AI seems like a really cool area of research that should've stayed within the confines of university campuses and research labs until it was ready to be actually used somewhere.
>How did worry about AI safety become a tech bro signifier and not the opposite?
Most liberal arts majors aren't in a tech echo-chamber and they don't stand to get 7+ figure payouts from AI taking off. Worrying about "AI safety" is just so stupid the only people who talk about that are either autistic nerds who could be manipulated into believing anything or people who stand to make a profit.
If you think ChatGPT "broke containment" you're probably sitting with sub 90IQ and I'm not even joking.
>AI seems like a really cool area of research that should've stayed within the confines of university campuses and research labs until it was ready to be actually used somewhere.
Doesn't sound too dissimilar to the internet, or other "destructive" technologies.
Anonymous :
4 days ago :
No.11068
>>11069
>>11068
What I'm getting that is that either situation makes gen AI impossible to use in business. Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent, or you can't sue them in which case most businesses will opt to not use their products or to at least limit their usage.
>>No.11061
Yeah that's my point, the slow gradual adoption of the internet meant that it was filling actual demand for it. People wanted internet access and willingly paid for it and organically supported its growth. Keeping it in universities and research labs at the beginning helped refine the tech before it was available for consumers.
AI is getting pushed to market way too early, it's like if back in the 40s they decided to build massive 60 acre ENIACs for everyone to take turns with.
>>11056
>exponential progress
There is literally no evidence that AI improvement is exponential. The marketing teams of these companies seem to be borrowing that idea from Moore's Law which applies to hardware (not software) and has been dead since the 2010. Jensen Huang himself stated that he considers it dead. We've also had tons of AI/Automaton scares throughout history, this is not a new concept or grift. Additionally, CNNs have existed for a long time and AlexNet came out almost 15 years ago.
Truthfully, I know next to nothing about AI even though I'm a software engineer, the classes I took in it were before ChatGPT dropped. I truly hate the technology and think it's a step backwards for most of the industry. The actual use cases for it are extremely narrow, the vast majority of people and businesses use computers because data is reliable and 100% reproducible. I can't think of many situations where you need unreliable results that are generated in a proprietary blackbox. Human employees have a lot more value than just the tasks they complete, specifically they can be held accountable for mistakes. What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
I just don't see a world where general AI models are doing anything. Even something as trivial as Flock Cameras are getting insane pushback and violate the constitution. AI seems like a really cool area of research that should've stayed within the confines of university campuses and research labs until it was ready to be actually used somewhere.
>How did worry about AI safety become a tech bro signifier and not the opposite?
Most liberal arts majors aren't in a tech echo-chamber and they don't stand to get 7+ figure payouts from AI taking off. Worrying about "AI safety" is just so stupid the only people who talk about that are either autistic nerds who could be manipulated into believing anything or people who stand to make a profit.
If you think ChatGPT "broke containment" you're probably sitting with sub 90IQ and I'm not even joking.
>What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
yes? what's confusing about that
Anonymous :
4 days ago :
No.11069
>>11070
>>11069
I'm not so sure about other sectors but pretty much everyone in tech uses AI on a more-or-less daily basis. I don't love it, I don't look forward to the day when I don't get to write my own code anymore because I'm obliged to get a robot to do it, but the claim that it's too immature to be useful just doesn't hold water.
At the same time as far as I know it has basically obliterated most of the lower-end of the market for things like translation and copy-editing. Those ENIACs had nothing like that sort of impact on the economy.
>>11074>>11069
1) I meant the Internet should still be kept to the academic sphere
2) Why do you think AI is being pushed to market so aggressively?
>>11083>>11069
>Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent,
nigga what? this is how all companies work!! avoiding lawsuits is an incentive to make sure your product works. why is it any different for AI than a company that makes cars or software or baby cribs? you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
>>11068
>>11056
>What are you gonna do if you AI sales rep gets tricked into selling your product for $1 instead of $50 per unit? Are you gonna sue Anthropic?
yes? what's confusing about that
What I'm getting that is that either situation makes gen AI impossible to use in business. Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent, or you can't sue them in which case most businesses will opt to not use their products or to at least limit their usage.
>>No.11061
Yeah that's my point, the slow gradual adoption of the internet meant that it was filling actual demand for it. People wanted internet access and willingly paid for it and organically supported its growth. Keeping it in universities and research labs at the beginning helped refine the tech before it was available for consumers.
AI is getting pushed to market way too early, it's like if back in the 40s they decided to build massive 60 acre ENIACs for everyone to take turns with.
>>11069
>>11068
What I'm getting that is that either situation makes gen AI impossible to use in business. Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent, or you can't sue them in which case most businesses will opt to not use their products or to at least limit their usage.
>>No.11061
Yeah that's my point, the slow gradual adoption of the internet meant that it was filling actual demand for it. People wanted internet access and willingly paid for it and organically supported its growth. Keeping it in universities and research labs at the beginning helped refine the tech before it was available for consumers.
AI is getting pushed to market way too early, it's like if back in the 40s they decided to build massive 60 acre ENIACs for everyone to take turns with.
I'm not so sure about other sectors but pretty much everyone in tech uses AI on a more-or-less daily basis. I don't love it, I don't look forward to the day when I don't get to write my own code anymore because I'm obliged to get a robot to do it, but the claim that it's too immature to be useful just doesn't hold water.
At the same time as far as I know it has basically obliterated most of the lower-end of the market for things like translation and copy-editing. Those ENIACs had nothing like that sort of impact on the economy.
Anonymous :
4 days ago :
No.11074
>>11086
>>11074
>1)
Sorry I misunderstood
>2)
Probably a hot take think this is almost exclusively Sam Altman's fault. OpenAI made sense remaining a nonprofit with access to literal trillions from investors like Musk and AWS. I think Elon (as divisive as he is) understood the business model just wasn't there yet.
I believe Altman is a sociopath that mimics people whose power/influence/wealth he desires, similar to Elizabeth Holmes. I forget the details and they've been mostly scrubbed from the internet, but he essentially slept his way into his position at YC and leveraged that to get his job as CEO of OpenAI. His whole come up is really strange and built on bullshit, Loopt had like 0 users when it was bought.
He wanted to be a billionaire and rushed an impressive but premature technology to market because he knew it was good enough to scare people into investing. This caused a domino effect where basically every tech company had to buy in or risk scaring their shareholders or missing out on a revolutionary technology (nobody wants to repeat what Ballmer did with the iPhone). However, people aren't considering the alternative situation where maybe this technology isn't like the iPhone.
I want to be clear that I don't think AI is useless, I think where it's applied to specific cases it can be great. Anthropic has coding, Eleven Labs has voice, ByteDance and Google have video generation, and I think it's application in robotics will be huge. However, 99% of these B2B SaaS AI companies are worthless and I can't imagine what will happen to OpenAI. It really seems like an Enron level scam over there to me which will also affect all AI companies when its exposed.
>>11083
I worked very briefly in ISRM before switching to software development, I'm not a law student though.
The problem is intended use, when you buy a lawn mower you get a pamphlet that explains how to use it and safety precautions, if you ignore those instructions then that's on you. If you buy a lawn mower, follow the instructions, and when you turn it on it blows your legs off, then you can sue.
AI problems generally fall into the latter category more than the former, there are people getting the Chipotle chatbot to give them bomb recipes.
>you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
They do get sued over this and airlines aren't profitable and are heavily subsidized by the government. I think people are ok with subsiding air travel but aren't with subsidizing AI.
I'm too lazy to get into the rest of this but the business models of a lot of AI companies are bullshit and not comparable to Boeing. There is a lot of unmitigated risk that isn't "AI breaching containment" more like AI fucking up catastrophically which makes it difficult to market to large companies.
>>11069
>>11068
What I'm getting that is that either situation makes gen AI impossible to use in business. Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent, or you can't sue them in which case most businesses will opt to not use their products or to at least limit their usage.
>>No.11061
Yeah that's my point, the slow gradual adoption of the internet meant that it was filling actual demand for it. People wanted internet access and willingly paid for it and organically supported its growth. Keeping it in universities and research labs at the beginning helped refine the tech before it was available for consumers.
AI is getting pushed to market way too early, it's like if back in the 40s they decided to build massive 60 acre ENIACs for everyone to take turns with.
1) I meant the Internet should still be kept to the academic sphere
2) Why do you think AI is being pushed to market so aggressively?
Anonymous :
4 days ago :
No.11083
>>11086
>>11074
>1)
Sorry I misunderstood
>2)
Probably a hot take think this is almost exclusively Sam Altman's fault. OpenAI made sense remaining a nonprofit with access to literal trillions from investors like Musk and AWS. I think Elon (as divisive as he is) understood the business model just wasn't there yet.
I believe Altman is a sociopath that mimics people whose power/influence/wealth he desires, similar to Elizabeth Holmes. I forget the details and they've been mostly scrubbed from the internet, but he essentially slept his way into his position at YC and leveraged that to get his job as CEO of OpenAI. His whole come up is really strange and built on bullshit, Loopt had like 0 users when it was bought.
He wanted to be a billionaire and rushed an impressive but premature technology to market because he knew it was good enough to scare people into investing. This caused a domino effect where basically every tech company had to buy in or risk scaring their shareholders or missing out on a revolutionary technology (nobody wants to repeat what Ballmer did with the iPhone). However, people aren't considering the alternative situation where maybe this technology isn't like the iPhone.
I want to be clear that I don't think AI is useless, I think where it's applied to specific cases it can be great. Anthropic has coding, Eleven Labs has voice, ByteDance and Google have video generation, and I think it's application in robotics will be huge. However, 99% of these B2B SaaS AI companies are worthless and I can't imagine what will happen to OpenAI. It really seems like an Enron level scam over there to me which will also affect all AI companies when its exposed.
>>11083
I worked very briefly in ISRM before switching to software development, I'm not a law student though.
The problem is intended use, when you buy a lawn mower you get a pamphlet that explains how to use it and safety precautions, if you ignore those instructions then that's on you. If you buy a lawn mower, follow the instructions, and when you turn it on it blows your legs off, then you can sue.
AI problems generally fall into the latter category more than the former, there are people getting the Chipotle chatbot to give them bomb recipes.
>you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
They do get sued over this and airlines aren't profitable and are heavily subsidized by the government. I think people are ok with subsiding air travel but aren't with subsidizing AI.
I'm too lazy to get into the rest of this but the business models of a lot of AI companies are bullshit and not comparable to Boeing. There is a lot of unmitigated risk that isn't "AI breaching containment" more like AI fucking up catastrophically which makes it difficult to market to large companies.
>>11069
>>11068
What I'm getting that is that either situation makes gen AI impossible to use in business. Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent, or you can't sue them in which case most businesses will opt to not use their products or to at least limit their usage.
>>No.11061
Yeah that's my point, the slow gradual adoption of the internet meant that it was filling actual demand for it. People wanted internet access and willingly paid for it and organically supported its growth. Keeping it in universities and research labs at the beginning helped refine the tech before it was available for consumers.
AI is getting pushed to market way too early, it's like if back in the 40s they decided to build massive 60 acre ENIACs for everyone to take turns with.
>Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent,
nigga what? this is how all companies work!! avoiding lawsuits is an incentive to make sure your product works. why is it any different for AI than a company that makes cars or software or baby cribs? you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
Anonymous :
3 days ago :
No.11086
>>11125
>>11086
>Enron level scam
I'm interested in hearing more about that, because I'll admit to living under a rock for the most part, and have finally been reading more about AI and its position in the fintech world. It's absurd actually how much money is swirling around this essentially untested tech. And it seems to have no sign of stopping.
The strength which state agents like China are also chomping at the bit to get in the game make me wonder too at AI's realness versus image. However, it seems unknown the quantity which the Chinese are investing, which could be more conservative than the speculative insanity going on in the US.
What is Altman's end goal if he's just a con man? Or has he passed the goal and now just along for the ride?
>>11074
>>11069
1) I meant the Internet should still be kept to the academic sphere
2) Why do you think AI is being pushed to market so aggressively?
>1)
Sorry I misunderstood
>2)
Probably a hot take think this is almost exclusively Sam Altman's fault. OpenAI made sense remaining a nonprofit with access to literal trillions from investors like Musk and AWS. I think Elon (as divisive as he is) understood the business model just wasn't there yet.
I believe Altman is a sociopath that mimics people whose power/influence/wealth he desires, similar to Elizabeth Holmes. I forget the details and they've been mostly scrubbed from the internet, but he essentially slept his way into his position at YC and leveraged that to get his job as CEO of OpenAI. His whole come up is really strange and built on bullshit, Loopt had like 0 users when it was bought.
He wanted to be a billionaire and rushed an impressive but premature technology to market because he knew it was good enough to scare people into investing. This caused a domino effect where basically every tech company had to buy in or risk scaring their shareholders or missing out on a revolutionary technology (nobody wants to repeat what Ballmer did with the iPhone). However, people aren't considering the alternative situation where maybe this technology isn't like the iPhone.
I want to be clear that I don't think AI is useless, I think where it's applied to specific cases it can be great. Anthropic has coding, Eleven Labs has voice, ByteDance and Google have video generation, and I think it's application in robotics will be huge. However, 99% of these B2B SaaS AI companies are worthless and I can't imagine what will happen to OpenAI. It really seems like an Enron level scam over there to me which will also affect all AI companies when its exposed.
>>11083>>11069
>Either you can sue large AI companies, in which case there will be subject to so many lawsuits they will be rendered insolvent,
nigga what? this is how all companies work!! avoiding lawsuits is an incentive to make sure your product works. why is it any different for AI than a company that makes cars or software or baby cribs? you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
I worked very briefly in ISRM before switching to software development, I'm not a law student though.
The problem is intended use, when you buy a lawn mower you get a pamphlet that explains how to use it and safety precautions, if you ignore those instructions then that's on you. If you buy a lawn mower, follow the instructions, and when you turn it on it blows your legs off, then you can sue.
AI problems generally fall into the latter category more than the former, there are people getting the Chipotle chatbot to give them bomb recipes.
>you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
They do get sued over this and airlines aren't profitable and are heavily subsidized by the government. I think people are ok with subsiding air travel but aren't with subsidizing AI.
I'm too lazy to get into the rest of this but the business models of a lot of AI companies are bullshit and not comparable to Boeing. There is a lot of unmitigated risk that isn't "AI breaching containment" more like AI fucking up catastrophically which makes it difficult to market to large companies.
Because AI developers see themselves as closer to Oppenheimer than the citizens of Nagasaki.
Their concern always has an element of self-aggrandizing
Anonymous :
8 hours ago :
No.11125
>>11140
>>11125
off topic but the way you write sentences gives me a fucking stroke. the grammar is not technically wrong but it feels like an alien wrote it. honestly pretty impressive
>>11086
>>11074
>1)
Sorry I misunderstood
>2)
Probably a hot take think this is almost exclusively Sam Altman's fault. OpenAI made sense remaining a nonprofit with access to literal trillions from investors like Musk and AWS. I think Elon (as divisive as he is) understood the business model just wasn't there yet.
I believe Altman is a sociopath that mimics people whose power/influence/wealth he desires, similar to Elizabeth Holmes. I forget the details and they've been mostly scrubbed from the internet, but he essentially slept his way into his position at YC and leveraged that to get his job as CEO of OpenAI. His whole come up is really strange and built on bullshit, Loopt had like 0 users when it was bought.
He wanted to be a billionaire and rushed an impressive but premature technology to market because he knew it was good enough to scare people into investing. This caused a domino effect where basically every tech company had to buy in or risk scaring their shareholders or missing out on a revolutionary technology (nobody wants to repeat what Ballmer did with the iPhone). However, people aren't considering the alternative situation where maybe this technology isn't like the iPhone.
I want to be clear that I don't think AI is useless, I think where it's applied to specific cases it can be great. Anthropic has coding, Eleven Labs has voice, ByteDance and Google have video generation, and I think it's application in robotics will be huge. However, 99% of these B2B SaaS AI companies are worthless and I can't imagine what will happen to OpenAI. It really seems like an Enron level scam over there to me which will also affect all AI companies when its exposed.
>>11083
I worked very briefly in ISRM before switching to software development, I'm not a law student though.
The problem is intended use, when you buy a lawn mower you get a pamphlet that explains how to use it and safety precautions, if you ignore those instructions then that's on you. If you buy a lawn mower, follow the instructions, and when you turn it on it blows your legs off, then you can sue.
AI problems generally fall into the latter category more than the former, there are people getting the Chipotle chatbot to give them bomb recipes.
>you might as well say Boeing couldn’t exist because they’d get sued whenever their planes crashed
They do get sued over this and airlines aren't profitable and are heavily subsidized by the government. I think people are ok with subsiding air travel but aren't with subsidizing AI.
I'm too lazy to get into the rest of this but the business models of a lot of AI companies are bullshit and not comparable to Boeing. There is a lot of unmitigated risk that isn't "AI breaching containment" more like AI fucking up catastrophically which makes it difficult to market to large companies.
>Enron level scam
I'm interested in hearing more about that, because I'll admit to living under a rock for the most part, and have finally been reading more about AI and its position in the fintech world. It's absurd actually how much money is swirling around this essentially untested tech. And it seems to have no sign of stopping.
The strength which state agents like China are also chomping at the bit to get in the game make me wonder too at AI's realness versus image. However, it seems unknown the quantity which the Chinese are investing, which could be more conservative than the speculative insanity going on in the US.
What is Altman's end goal if he's just a con man? Or has he passed the goal and now just along for the ride?
>>11125
>>11086
>Enron level scam
I'm interested in hearing more about that, because I'll admit to living under a rock for the most part, and have finally been reading more about AI and its position in the fintech world. It's absurd actually how much money is swirling around this essentially untested tech. And it seems to have no sign of stopping.
The strength which state agents like China are also chomping at the bit to get in the game make me wonder too at AI's realness versus image. However, it seems unknown the quantity which the Chinese are investing, which could be more conservative than the speculative insanity going on in the US.
What is Altman's end goal if he's just a con man? Or has he passed the goal and now just along for the ride?
off topic but the way you write sentences gives me a fucking stroke. the grammar is not technically wrong but it feels like an alien wrote it. honestly pretty impressive