No no, it's "order of magnitudes". It's like "surgeons general."
I'm just wondering how exactly he goes about doing this. Like if I wanted to casually slip the N word into a casual conversation (for... some reason) I'm not actually sure how I would go about setting it up?
Like, is he just randomly saying it at people to see how they react (which most normies rightfully would judge as very weird)? Is he using it to describe actual black people (in which case I feel like people dropping him as a friend aren't really doing it over "speech taboos", are they...)? Is he asking people "so how do you feel about the word 'n.....'?" Something else? My curiosity is piqued now.
we simply don't know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights
I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there's currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.
even putting aside philosophy/ethics, have they never heard of common expressions like "too much of a good thing" or "the dose makes the poison"? it's just an extremely, extremely common idea basically everywhere except in the tech industry
"We can transcend the limitations of our physical bodies via technology! Wait, no, not like that!"
since we both have the High IQ feat you should be agreeing with me, after all we share the same privileged access to absolute truth. That we aren’t must mean you are unaligned/need to be further cleansed of thetans.
They have to agree, it's mathematically proven by Aumann's Agreement Theorem!
I had the same thought as Emily Bender's first one there, lol. The map is interesting to me, but mostly as a demonstration of how anglosphere-centric these models are!
The problem is I guess you'd need a significant corpus of human-written stuff in that language to make the LLM work in the first place, right?
Actually this is something I've been thinking about more generally: the "ai makes programmers obsolete" take sort of implies everyone continues to use javascript and python for everything forever and ever (and also that those languages never add any new idioms or features in the future I guess.)
Like, I guess now that we have AI, all computer language progress is just supposed to be frozen at September 2021? Where are you gonna get the training data to keep the AI up to date with the latest language developments or libraries?
The winning votes will become investments into the post, binding the CONTENT_EXCRECATOR to CREATE_THE_CONTENT and based on some configurable metric (post score, ad revenue etc.) the investment will accrue dividends
I'm in, but only if this part is handled by fractionalizing an NFT linking to the original post on your custom blockchain
“We want to make sure that you see great content, that you’re posting great content, and that you’re interacting with the community,” he says.
I feel like using the phrase "great content" unironically is sort of a tell that someone has no idea what makes 'content' 'great' in the first place
Relatedly (and relevant to this article) I feel like the funniest part of the whole AI bubble has been executives repeatedly unwittingly revealing that they could be replaced by a simple computer program
Yud’s brilliant response is that this makes no sense to describe this as trauma, because you don’t get traumatized by physics class, right?
Isn't this literally formally fallacious? "There exist non-traumatizing true things" doesn't imply "all true things are non-traumatizing."
Ordinarily I'm not one to harp on logical fallacies, but come on Yudkowsky, you're supposed to be Mr. Rational!
200fifty
joined 1 year ago
I've thought about a similar idea before in the more minor context of stuff like note-taking apps -- when you're taking notes in a paper notebook, you can take notes in whatever format you want, you can add little pictures or diagrams or whatever, arranged however you want. Heck, you can write sheet music notation. When you're taking notes in an app, you can basically just write paragraphs of text, or bullet points, and maybe add pictures in some limited predefined locations if you're lucky.
Obviously you get some advantages in exchange for the restrictive format (you can sync/back up things to the internet! you can search through your notes! etc) but it's by no means a strict upgrade, it's more of a tradeoff with advantages and disadvantages. I think we tend to frame technological solutions like this as though they were strict upgrades, and often we aren't so willing to look at what is being lost in the tradeoff.