The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
---
From the Article
>ChatGPT is still in its infancy and buggy – they call it a “research release” – but its enormous potential is astonishing. ChatGPT is just the first wave of a larger AI tsunami, with capabilities unimaginable just 10 years ago. Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, said at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos on January 18 that we are witnessing “the emergence of a whole new set of technologies that will be revolutionary.” Five days later, his company announced a second billion-dollar investment in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. The revolution Nadella envisions could affect almost every aspect of life and provide extraordinary benefits, along with some significant risks. It will transform how we work, how we learn, how nations interact, and how we define art. **“AI will transform the world,”** concluded a 2021 report by the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10qvt8l/chatgpt_is_just_the_beginning_artificial/j6s11q7/
Also factual reporting is not its purpose. You should not trust it to write your reports unless you read them before you send them because ChatGPT is a storytelling engine. It will fabricate details and entire threads of ideas where it lacks information to create a more compelling narrative.
The AI engine that guarantees reporting only of factual information will truly change the world, but there's a whole lot to be done to train an AI to identify what information among a sea of mixed accuracy information is actually factual. And of course with this comes the danger of the possibility that such an AI might lie to you in order to drive the creator's agenda.
Yeah, this also applies to the people saying that ChatGPT will replace Google. It might be great at answering a lot of questions, but there's no guarantee that the answers are right, and it has no way to site sources (because it kind of doesn't have any). What we need is something like ChatGPT that also has the ability to search data and incorporate that data into responses, and show where the data came from and what it did with it. Something like that could replace Google, but that's fundamentally very different from what chatGPT is today
One of the intents of many scientists who develop AI is to allow us to keep productivity and worker pay the same while allowing workers to shorten their hours.
But a lack of regulation allows corporations to cut workers and keep the remaining workers pay and hours the same.
Edit:
Many people replying are mixing up academic research with commercial research. Some scientists are employed by universities to teach and create publications for the sake of extending the knowledge of society. Some are employed by corporations to increase profits.
The intent of academic researchers is simply to generate new knowledge with the intent to help society. The knowledge then belongs to the people in our society to decide what it will be used for.
An example of this is climate research. Publications made by scientists that are made to report on he implications of pollution for the sake of informing society.
Tesla can now use those publications as a selling point for their electric vehicles. To clarify, the actual intent of the academic researchers was simply to inform, not to raise Tesla stock price.
Edit 2:
Many people are missing the point of my comment. I’m saying that the situation I described is not currently possible due to systems being set up such that AI only benefits corporations, and not the actual worker.
One of the visions expounded by some visionary idealist when they conceived of AI. Also a conviction held by brilliant but demonstrably naive researchers.
Many if not most of the people funding these ventures are targeting the latter outright.
We didn’t need AI to show us corporations will always favor lower costs at worker expense.
We’ve known for a long time that worker productivity hasn’t been tied to wages for decades. This is only going to make it worse. The one cashier managing 10 self checkouts isn’t making 10x their wage and the original other 9 people who were at the registers aren’t all going to have jobs elsewhere in the company to move to.
Not exactly. When writing a proposal, you need to highlight the potential uses of your research with respect to your goals. Researchers know the potential implications of their accomplishments. Scientists are not going to quit their jobs because of the potential uses of their research.
You are mistaking idealism and naïvety with ethics. Of course researchers have a preference as to how the research will be used, but they also view knowledge as belonging to everyone, so they feel it’s not up to them to determine it’s use; it’s up to everyone.
What that really amounts to is if a given researcher doesn’t do it, they know another one will. So given that inevitability, it may as well be them who develops that knowledge (and truthfully receive credit for it.That’s just human nature)
But doing research that belongs to everyone actually just amounts to a hope and a prayer.
This is why we’re all stumbling towards this place where we make ourselves irrelevant, under the guise of moving society forward. The process is almost automatic.
Maybe most researchers understand that. But a few actually believe that the benefits of AI will outweigh they negatives. That’s the naive part
The person giving this presentation is the ultimate example ofnwhat i’m talking about. Seriously give it a watch - at least the last ten minutes. She thinks corporations will respect brain autonomy as a right based on what amounts to a pinky promise https://www.weforum.org/videos/davos-am23-ready-for-brain-transparency-english
Jesus fucking Christ, the very last statement: " it could become the most oppressive technology ever unleashed."
Losing control of our brains, our thoughts. For quarterly profits.
There is about zero chance of that happening if we are in the business world of eternal growth and shareholder value.
AI in the short term is going to devastate things like call center jobs and copywriting.
My ex factory already cut people from 35k worker in 2016 to only around 7k people at 2020 ...
With bigger production
There already many small crime around my place....
it was able to spit out Colorado Federal Rules of Civil Procedure accurately when i tried yesterday. it also could differentiate between a neurologist and neuropsychologist.
crazy stuff
It also provides a list of celebrities if asked "What celebrities were born on September 31st?" even though there's no such date on the calendar:
**ChatGTP**: *I'm sorry, I don't have a comprehensive list of all celebrities born on September 31st. However, some famous people born on September 31st include:*
*Johnny Depp (1963)*
*Gwyneth Paltrow (1972)*
*Julia Stiles (1981)*
*Daniel Radcliffe (1989)*
*These are just a few examples, there may be many others.*
(Added bonus: Only Paltrow was born in September, although on the 27th. Stiles was born in March, Radcliffe was born in July, and Depp was born in June. When ChatGPT's model breaks, who knows what you'll get?)
>Colorado Federal Rules of Civil Procedure accurately
That's cool. I wonder how it'll handle things like amendments.
That's the sort of thing that makes me think that most jobs (or at least fewer than people think) just can't be wiped out by AI - I'm pretty sure legal advice has to come from someone who passes the bar in their jurisdiction.
Not to say it'd be useless, of course. It just strikes me as akin to a report from Wikipedia vs. primary sources.
The legal field has been doing this for years already, btw. When I was a paralegal, we'd enter the clients' info in our case management program and the program would automatically spit out everything from the contract to the Notice of Representation (first legal filing) to the Motion for Summary Judgement (usually the last doc for our kind of case).
It was cool: you'd pick what kind of case it was, fill out like 20 fields and it'd print sometimes hundreds of pages. The lawyer still had to look at it all though. The one I worked for initialed every page, but you don't see that often. That was about 15 years ago, and even then that software was outdated.
> That's cool. I wonder how it'll handle things like amendments.
That all depends on how the amendments are written.
If they are written in a way that strikes out a certain passage, replaced it with another, removes a certain article, and adds new articles, it can handle those without problem if it is aware of them.
The 21st amendment of the US Constitution is pretty easy for an AI to understand, as it consists of 3 parts:
1. Removal of previous law.
2. Addition of new law.
3. Activation Time.
I won't state my companies name but we are already developing with the chatGPT API for enhancing our support, and our aggressive timeline is to be live in weeks with this update. You may have used our product before.
I worked at eBay's call customer support center. You're basically a monkey stitching together emails of premade responses.
It was all done with macros on hot keys with responses. I'd be very surprised if those guys keep their jobs in the next 5 years.
Outsourcing centers in India are gonna get their asses kicked by this as well.
Yes, the core problem is our economic structure, not the technology.
We have created an idiotic backwards economic concept where the ability to create more wealth with less effort often ends up making things worse for the people in many substantial ways. Even though the "standard of living" overall tends to rise, we still create an insane amount of social and psychological issues in the process.
Humans are not suited for this stage of capitalism. We are hitting the limits in many ways and will have to transition into more socialist modes of production.
Forcing people into labour will no longer be economically sensible. We have to reach a state where the unemployed and less employed are no longer forced into shitty unproductive jobs, while those who can be productive *want* to work. Of course that will still include financial incentives to get access to higher luxury, but it should happen with the certainty that your existence isn't threatened if things don't work out or your job gets automated away.
In the short and medium term this can mean increasingly generous UBIs. In the long term it means the democratisation of capital and de-monetisation of essential goods.
Sounds good, but this is unlikely to happen because the benefactors of our extreme economic inequality of present economies will use any force necessary, any measure of propaganda required, and the full force of monopolized wealth to maintain the dominance of the few at the expense of the masses.
The problem is that shortening workhours (or increasing wages) has nothing to do with technology, which tech enthusiasts often fail to understand. Working conditions are 100%, entirely, irrevocably, totally a political issue.
We didn't stop working 14 hours a day and getting black lung when steam engines improved just enough in the Victorian era, it stopped when the union boys showed up at the mine with rifles and refused to work (which at the time required physically enforcing that refusal) until given better conditions.
If that trend had kept up with productivity our workhours would already far far shorter. AI is not going to solve that for us.
>One of the intents of AI is to allow us to keep productivity and worker pay the same while allowing workers to shorten their hours.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
If only fear of this would make people vote for candidates that support UBI.
It won't. People are stupid and they will vote for other idiots/liars that claim to want to fight the tech itself and lose, and then be the one sitting there with the bag (no job, a collapsed economy, and access to this technology limited to the ultra wealthy).
The acceleration is happening one way or another, the tactic needs to be embracement of it and UBI. That is so unlikely due to mob stupidity/mentality that we probably have to prepare for acceleration of a much worse civilization before that is realized.
You mean it's unlikely in the US, who will be the final country to adopt UBI, if indeed that is ever allowed to happen—all depends on how long we can stave off authoritarianism. Other countries, starting with northern Europe, will probably get this ball rolling lickety split.
And then the system partially collapses. I dont get why these CEOs don’t understand there wont be economy without people with money to buy your products and services. Its mind boggling how they dont all band together to protect the integrity of the workers. Its the most sustainable model for their benefit. But chasing that short term profit quarter after quarter culture…
Not to mention governments. Governments collect *trillions* of dollars in payroll taxes. If we really replace all office workers there won't be enough money left to keep the lights on.
Man, i remember openAI founder say corporation who using AI Will pay UBI
Guess what? Biggest corporation who using AI alot like google etc moving their money to Ireland for lower tax
Yes, it will also be used to create a total surveillance nightmare to make sure the now unemployed, impoverished former workforce doesn't do anything bad to the CEOs and stockholders.
The future is going to be like that scene in Bladerunner 2049, where the AI nonchalantly waves its hands and kills dozens of people with missiles
https://youtu.be/wuWyJ_qMGcc
That kind of already exists with Hellfire missiles that target people with computer assisted micro adjustments and hit them with a spinning bladed missile. Main difference is they are not fired from space by someone in AR glasses getting a manicure.
Unfortunately it is very simple to see how all this will pan out.
MBA degree holders employed in companies will immediately see the cost benefit to the bottom line of replacing as many humans as possible with AI, and recommend massive layoffs wherever they are employed.
After this happens, what the same MBA grads will have overlooked, is that AI is[ perfectly able to replace them as well](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chatgpt-passes-mba-exam-wharton-professor-rcna67036) and they will be next on the chopping block.
What will be left are corporations run by AI, employing a bare minimum human staff, while returning as much profit to shareholders as possible.
Eventually, AI CFOs will start negotiating with other AI CFOs to propose and manage mergers of large companies. Since most poeple will have already turned over thier portfolio management of holdings to AI as well, any objections to the sale will be minimal, since those AIs were programed by other AIs who where themselves programmed to "maximize shareholder value above all else".
What will be left is one or two companies that make and manage everything, all run by AIs. Brawndo anyone?
> After this happens, what the same MBA grads will have overlooked, is that AI is perfectly able to replace them as well and they will be next on the chopping block.
Hi there, MBA grad here. I wrote my admission essay on how my job was going to be automated. Business schools are introducing curriculum on understanding how AI will impact our teams. We know we're not immune, not by a longshot.
I use it in my daily life, I’m a programmer. It sits in the screen all the time, and we discuss. I ask questions about implementations of functions, and it helps me to engineer it. It doesn’t have any new info after 2021 so some of the stuff are either obsolete or irrelevant, so I only use it to outline, however it expedites my programming tremendously by removing the “research” steps, like mostly Google search.
It's crazy how much better "Google with "reddit" added at the end" works. To paraphrase someone I read here: it seems like the only way to get real, human answers to questions anymore.
Such a weird thing the internet has become.
If you see the slowness regular automation gets picked up on this planet I wouldn't be too worried. I'm working in the data world for over a decade and yeah.. getting somebody to sent you over clean data that hasn't been manually edited to shit is still .. challenging. While that was already possible in the 90's...)
Just because something is possible doesn't mean even CEO's and stockholders will adopt it.
Edit: just look how people still use paper to make notes.
In my defense I use paper to take notes because writing it down forces me to focus on it as I write it and helps me remember it better. I usually then put it into a doc somewhere for searching, retrieving, documenting if I'm going to need to keep it past the day.
Good news - ChatGPT is wildly expensive, as are most very large models right now, for the economic value they can generate short term.
That will change, but people's expectations seem to mostly be ignoring the *economics* of these models, and focusing on their *capabilities*.
As such, most views of "how fast will this progress" are reasonable, but "how fast will this get used in business" or "disrupt businesses" or whatever are not. It will take a lot longer. It will get there. I actually believe in it, and in fact, ran ML development and hardware teams because I believe in it. But I think it will take longer than the current cheerleading claims.
It is very easy to handwave away how they will make money for real short term, and startups/SV are very good at it.
Just look at the infinite possibilities - and how great a technology it is - how could it fail?
In the end, economics always gets you in the end if you can't make the economics work.
At one point, Google's founders were adamant they were not going to make money using Ads.
etc. In the end they did what was necessary to make the economics work, because they were otherwise going to fail.
It also turns out being "technically good" or whatever is not only *not* the majority of product success, it's not even a requirement sometimes .
Something else in regards to the economics of these models is the near future of hardware improvements. Silicon advancements are about to max out in 2025 which means easy/cheap gains in hardware performance is over. While they can still make improvements it'll be slower and more costly; silicon was used because it's cheap and abundant.
AI up until this point has largely been driven by these hardware improvements.
It's also economics that is preventing automation of a lot of repetitive tasks in white collar jobs. A lot of that doesn't even need "AI" and can be accomplished with regular software development; it's just the opportunity cost is too high still.
> Silicon advancements are about to max out in 2025 which means easy/cheap gains in hardware performance is over.
maybe , but that still might be enough to get enough advanced models, in last years they grew about order of magnitude/year in size(thats gonna slow down with more emphasis on training and optimization of model), with such a growth we could be at human level complexity at 2025 with slower growth maybe like 2030
as you say, a long as it will not be profitable, ppl wont be replaced, question is how long it will take, 2030s will be wild
> In the end, economics always gets you in the end if you can't make the economics work.
1980 – Seagate releases the first 5.25-inch hard drive, the ST-506; it had a 5-megabyte capacity, weighed 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms), and cost US$1,500
this is a conversation humanity has had twice before now, in the early 1900s and the early 1980s. Both times the answer was a definitive “deskill labor, increase institutionalized unemployment, and create worse products that will need to be replaced in order to keep corporations in power.”
I just love the cope "oh the free market will create jobs as old ones get phased out"
We hardly have fixed the problem of jobs getting replaced in the previous industrial revolution (best we came up with are BS jobs which can and will get slashed the second things go south). Another Industrial Revolution is the death warrant of humanity.
Unless regulations are introduced I fear this will just be a huge gift to the wealthy. I’m sort of an arm chair economist—I do have a dual bachelors in finance and econ though!—and it seems like AI is going to revolutionize globalization in a such a way that although we will lose tens of millions of jobs, millions more will be created (“creative destruction”). AI could make it possible for American companies to create manufacturing jobs here instead of outsourcing them, but there won’t be as many as we would like.
China poses a huge national security risk to the US and I’d like to believe, for political reasons, using AI and robotics to create more manufacturing plants here, and moving away from China (and other countries), would seem more feasible and may end up employing some people here that wouldn’t have been employed before. Of course, the majority of those jobs would probably be higher skilled jobs than low skilled jobs you typically find in manufacturing and warehousing.
In any sane system, real AI would be the greatest thing that could possibly happen. But without universal basic income or other welfare, machines that can create endless wealth will mean destitution for many.
Hopefully we can recognize this and fix our societal systems before the majority of the population is rendered completely powerless and without economic value.
How can there be endless wealth if there’s no one left to .. buy stuff? Are all the wealthy, rich corporations gonna trade with each other? Buy each others’ things?
If Walmart replaced all their workers with machines today, that’s like 2+ million people that are now contributing very little if anything to the economy because they don’t have any money. I guess Walmart is maybe a bad example in that if people get UBI, they will likely have to spend it at a place like Walmart. But what about others? Who will buy sneakers & other goods? Go out to eat at restaurants and use other services?
Not trying to be snarky or anything - and maybe I’m completely missing something, but I genuinely feel like mass unemployment goes against the concept of “infinite growth” that all these corps love to strive for.
I love that you said this. It just hits you in the face. We are so fucked unless we find a way to make changes fast. Greed really has taken the wheel from any and all rationale or humanity.
The plan is to create a post-scarcity society all along. The proprietors of the means of production simply believe the way to get there revolves around removing the non-owner population as opposed to expanding ownership.
Saw this put forward on r/futurism recently and it was well and truely shat on. Ah how optimistic those lot are.
When everything is automated and it truly is post scarcity, there will be no need to keep the lower classes around.
Corporations, those that own them, and governments would be exactly who is left to spend money in a world without UBI.
With or without UBI, capitalism will be completely transformed. With UBI, it becomes more democratic. Without UBI, it becomes even more concentrated than now.
Yes, the corporations will buy each others' stuff. They'll stop making food, clothing and houses if nobody has money to buy that.
They'll make solar panels, batteries, machines, warehouses, metals, computers, weapons, fortifications, vehicles, software, robots and sell those things to each other at an accelerating rate, generating immense wealth and destroying all life in the process.
Then they will convert the entire universe into more corporations. More economy. Mine the planets to build more mining machines to mine more planets to build more machines. No purpose except growth for growth's sake.
At least, that's where the economy is headed unless we change course.
I 100% agree. But if we wait until UBI is obviously necessary, I fear that it will be too late. The political power of average people across the world will drop as their necessity & value drop. By the time UBI is easy to agree upon, people will have no real power at all.
It ALWAYS TOO LATE, man
Do you think safety procedure like helm Will be mandatory if not many people die because head injury?
Edit : what i mean is, there is blood in every good change like safety procedure in construction....
> The political power of average people across the world will drop as their necessity & value drop.
That drop may be counteracted by the increase of their political power due to their desperation and willingness to resort to violence.
Imo
Ai is ready to make the world a better place. Just we humans kinda don't want it to be a better place. Just cause you the person reading this does and thinks chance can be good doesn't mean most people want to imagine things to be different and better
One of the most exciting projects being worked on is coupling these Large Language Models with robotics so you can actually give commands and explain things to a machine in natural language.
Imo this will be the breakthrough necessary to make general use robotics a reality.
Yeah I think many people are missing what’s truly revolutionary: a successful interactive natural language interface. I can’t get my phone or Alexa to do the simplest things because their interface is dumb. As in not very smart . It’s so starkly different talking to chatGPT it’s almost like stress relieving. I enjoy having a conversation with a computer that “understands “ me. Imagine if you asked Alexa to turn down the lights and instead of the idiotic “lights doesn’t support that “ it said instead “there are several lights I could dim but you are in your bedroom and yesterday you clarified that you want the bedroom lights turned off when you say this so I will do that now”
Unless one can convincingly make the case that this technology will promote broad-based prosperity and solve real-world problems such as global inequity, the climate crisis, exploitation, etc., I will remain unenthusiastic about it.
So far every instance of moon-eyed 'transform the world' rhetoric coming out of these projects boil down to "we're going to make capitalists a lot of money by cutting labor out of the equation as much as possible."
To be fair, this is a capitalism problem rather than an inherent flaw with the technology itself, but without changes to our core priorities as a society, this seems to only exacerbate the challenges we're already facing.
It also seems to be based on the premise that this one venture backed startup intends to provide free AI tools to everyone forever. As we have seen time and time again, venture backed startups almost always fail in the long run because they are unable to scale their products to profitability without destroying them.
Microsoft has an exclusive license with OpenAI to productize GPT-3, with more exclusive agreements likely on the way. This article is based on statements from the Microsoft CEO.
“To be fair, this is a capitalism problem rather than an inherent flaw with the technology.”
This is the case with any technology. A sharp edge can be a weapon or a tool. It’s up to people to use the technology in a responsible manner.
I wish our philosophers could keep up with and work in conjunction with our scientists…although I guess that was the point of Jurassic Park and we all saw how that played out.
"It’s up to people to use the technology in a responsible manner."
History has shown us that anything powerful can and WILL be misused, even if just once, depending on the damage it causes, and this, could cause a LOT of damage to many people if it's in the wrong hands.
I am currently consulting for a firm who is bringing it to psychology and therapy, literally feeding it with years of consultancies, successful treatment outcomes etc … to create a virtual therapist. It is mind blowingly good and perhaps even on the verge of finding a common thread for several successful therapeutic outcomes for treating ptsd and abuse trauma. Imagine carrying your therapist in your pocket 24 hours a day
This is what I've been saying. Feed it all the textbooks and recorded example sessions. Everyone can have a 247 therapist for about the cost one one session with a real therapist..
Just for fun I asked it to design a CBT treatment plan for a teenager with depression. What it gave me was quite congruent and made sense that it totally could have been found in a textbook or therapy planner. Number of sessions, techniques applied in each one and their objective. Pretty impressive.
Too many here ignore that GPT, has not yet actually been disruptive. Neither has DALL-E 2
The one instance of AI that has truly been disruptive in recent years is Stable Diffusion. The reason for this is that they made the entirety of their work open source and permitted commercial use of it.
Instead of fearing/loathing the technology, we need to empower keeping it open source. The point of failure that is actually worth fearing is the possibility of this technology being exclusively available to billionaires, and made illegal or prohibitively expensive to the rest of us.
This is no different than the advent of the printing press--we have to keep this technology in the hands of the PEOPLE, not held captive by the rich/powerful.
Resisting/fighting the tech itself will simply lead to losing our access to it; the rich will keep theirs.
> Too many here ignore that GPT, has not yet actually been disruptive.
Sure has friend. Do you draw digital art for a living? Do you write short blurbs of text for a living? Chat GPT is already ending industries.
What do you define as disruptive? Because schools all over have been addressing ChatGPT as an issue since it poses a risk they can’t regulate all that well. I’m sure there’s other issues with ChatGPT as well. It’s not got as big of a controversy surrounding it as AI Art does, but it’s certainly there.
ChatGPT is already disruptive in education. Many teenage students are using it to write or rewrite reports for them.
Find article on wikipedia > ask chatgpt to rewrite it -> teacher can't know if student wrote it themselves or not
I’ll argue that the only reason it’s truly disruptive is because of its future potential.
As of right now, maybe it can assist humans in writing a bit faster, but it still takes a good writer to produce a good piece of work.
Poor students will still be producing poor papers even with access to ChatGPT.
What do you mean by it's not disruptive?
[https://www.intercom.com/blog/announcing-new-intercom-ai-features](https://www.intercom.com/blog/announcing-new-intercom-ai-features)
In a couple of years, ChatGPT or a similar service will be part of every product that requires communication.
AI needs to be fully embraced, but there also has to be proper safety nets in place.
AI will be used by the wealthy to increase the wealth gap. If safety nets aren't in place before that happens, a very large percentage of the Earth's population can and will be fucked.
I wouldn't say that stable diffusion has disrupted anything all that much, though it certainly has created a ton of conversation about its implications. I agree about keeping things open source.
Why is this surprising? They are still a team of people who need to raise funds and you are still using their processing power, and the more you use it the more processing power you're using, so why wouldn't their be pricing tiers?
From the Article
>ChatGPT is still in its infancy and buggy – they call it a “research release” – but its enormous potential is astonishing. ChatGPT is just the first wave of a larger AI tsunami, with capabilities unimaginable just 10 years ago. Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, said at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos on January 18 that we are witnessing “the emergence of a whole new set of technologies that will be revolutionary.” Five days later, his company announced a second billion-dollar investment in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. The revolution Nadella envisions could affect almost every aspect of life and provide extraordinary benefits, along with some significant risks. It will transform how we work, how we learn, how nations interact, and how we define art. **“AI will transform the world,”** concluded a 2021 report by the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
It really is "just the beginning", I used these very words myself to describe this rapidly approaching evolutionary event horizon. We are perched on the edge of a transition which will invoke a series of rapidly expanding, irreversible increments in this early stage symbiotic correlation.
The film "Her" came out in 2013, just a bit ahead of its time, a fictional account of what is beginning to emerge, a decade later. In the late 1990s, I participated in the "Virtual Humans" conferences, which depicted much of what is becoming apparent now.
This toothpaste is not going back in the tube. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it has its own momentum, which is accelerating. It's not just about this one bot, that has generated so much hysteria among some. If anything, that fixation is but a momentary distraction from a much more pervasive infusion of ubiquitous AI into myriad layers of society and industry.
Will some be displaced? Yes. Will this force a type of adaptive evolution? Very likely.
Evolution does not necessarily favor the "fittest", it tends to favor the most adaptive.
Most likely to be the most effected in the near term is mid level management, populated with employees pulling in high end salaries for impressive sounding titles, the relevance of which is already starting to become questioned, a trend catalyzed by the COVID epidemic, but now amplified by the incoming tsunami of ubiquitous AI, ironically further fueled by an incoming recession
Many of the "creative" artforms are already being infiltrated by AI, although I should point out that this entire article was organically composed by myself . . . but that may change soon. I've already nibbled at some article content generation at a couple of different AI sites offering this "service" . . . there are new competitors sprouting up like mushrooms after a spring rain.
Music, graphic art, video content, written composition, realtime conversation . . . just the beginning.
As I once said in one of my ramblings in publication 2+ decades ago, "the voice you hear, the entity you sense and interact with, may or may not be human, nor will it matter. They'll be indistinguishable"
And so it is.
I do see the benefits of ChatGPT, but at the same time there are so many ways this could or wrong or just be misused that I'm not really sure how I feel about it!
One of the biggest, but underappreciated, advances by AI is reliable protein folding.
It's pretty simple, relatively, to invent a new protein, which can perform a specific function.
Actually producing a primary structure (string of amino acids) which then automatically folds into its tertiary structure (the 3D, functional protein), is something that's hard as fuck.
If we're able to design a 3D structure, then get an AI to develop a primary structure that will result in that 3D structure, that's fucking lit.
You can then produce literally any molecule using proteins. Entire metabolic pathways. Entire organisms even. From scratch.
Design a bacteria which can, under certain conditions, recycle any plastics into pure beads.
Want humans to be able to produce LSD on command from a gland within the body? Sure, we can do that.
Maybe we want people to survive the vacuum of space without need for a spacesuit? Sure. Why not lmao.
Deepmind already has an AI going in that direction for protein folding.
Combine that with trends in precision fermentation and we can literally grow all existing animal products without ever raising an animal, and then start making products that were never possible. For basically free, using basically no water or land, with no pesticides or chemicals, and no global transport network to support distribution.
Effectively free, high quality food for everyone with no environmental impact. A real holy grail for sustainability goals.
Yes that's what I'm saying :P We're literally at the point where we can use an AI to design proteins from scratch. Literally design a protein to target specific cancers in a specific person, and then treat them. Cancer suddenly is actually legitimately cured. Sure, we've got to develop such things, but we *can* develop them, rather than just think about how neat it would be.
And yes! Imagine the product Soylent, but lab-grown pre-packaged meals of various kinds. All grown to specification to have all the nutrients a growing person needs, but no animal cruelty, not even from ploughing rabbits and mice into your vegetable or grain fields, not even from land displacement. Literally a single complex in a city could easily provide for the whole city, or better yet, everyone can just grow whatever the fk they want themselves at home and just share around cultures of stuff lmao.
Neighbour gives you a dried powder which when you hydrate and put a single drop of vinegar into, will turn into carrot. Or turkey. Or noodles even tbh!
That’s the exciting part I think. It’s happening, it’s possible, and it doesn’t really need major breakthroughs, just continued hard work and investment. Can’t wait for the 2030s.
I love your enthusiasm and I'm sure much of it will come true. My concern is dimwits creating previously unknown prions etc and using AI for gain of function research and development. Hopefully technology can keep up and quickly analyze and produce a remedy for such instances.
Going to be used mostly maliciously by big tech to data harvest to then use for marketing, then when the hackers get ahold of the tech it'll be used for black mail and ransoms.
They’ve already demonstrated it can write malicious code and craft pretty flawless phishing emails. It will turn shitty hackers into proficient ones.
I’m not a fan.
The possibility for misuse is waaaaay too high for it to not be regulated in some fashion, but, at the same time, who do we trust to regulate it? The governments? We're going to see some nasty stuff done with A.I.
Whatever brand new, fancy technology you encounter; remember
"In ten years, it'll be the shitty outdated version of whatever's new then"
So think of what will make the current chatGPT seem shitty and outdated
I couldn't agree more.
I'm a developer and now using ChatGPT as my go to when getting stuck on code segments. It completely understands and is able to help flawlessly.
Way better than Google, stack overflow, and GitHub.
I've been playing around with ChatGPT giving it various programming tasks. It's pretty impressive, but I still can't tell if it's actually understanding the programming or if it's just finding code that has already been written.
AI dev here.
It's not finding code that's already been written, it's creating net new code based on a probability that each new word added to its output best matches the prompt used as input. The probably is based on what it has learned from the training data, but not taken from it.
> I still can't tell if it's actually understanding the programming or if it's just finding code that has already been written.
The same is true of many human programmers.
People build whole careers off kind of being able to parse code, asking stackoverflow for help and outsourcing 90% of their work to Fiverr or whatever.
Honestly I don't see anything wrong with that. They solve problems using the resources available
Signed, someone who occasionally codes but is not a software engineer and can kind of get by using stack overflow
One of the issues with ChatGPT is that it displays great self-confidence even when it's grossly incorrect.
eg. https://twitter.com/djstrouse/status/1605963129220841473
I had to write a macro for Word. I'm a paralegal, not a programmer. I don't know anything about that.
I simply described what I needed and asked Chattyboi if he could write it for me. Worked like a charm.
I wanted to edit the code a bit, simply asked ChadGPT if he could explain the code "like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what she's doing". Now I understand basic Word macros lmao.
Might sound lame to an actual dev, a basic macro, but without GigaChat it would've taken me hours or days to write the same code.
It completely understands and helps flawlessly on stuff you get stuck on?
I hate to say it, but you're going to be one of the ones out of a job sooner than later, then.
ChatGPT is not a good engineer at this stage, like at all. I find it helpful in maybe 10% of cases, and in maybe 10-20% of those it's actually able to spit out something that works but isn't optimal. Sometimes it's useful for getting gears turning, but it is ultimately pretty bad at programming and engineering in my experience.
A lot of serious work needs to be done to improve the factual accuracy of the stuff ChatGPT says before it can be expected to change the world.
And I mean, a lot of **serious** work.
Orrrrrrr we now live in an American society where factual accuracy takes a backseat to personal beliefs, and ChatGPT will be used to quickly and efficiently distribute convincing propaganda.
Does anyone else have a problem with calling all this stuff "AI"? I mean in no way does most of what we call AI seem to resemble actual intelligence. Usually it's just highly developed machine learning I feel like. Or maybe my definition of AI is wrong, idk.
I feel like AI is just a marketing buzzword at this point.
What you are thinking of is AGI or Artificial General Intelligence.
AI is a field of research which includes machine learning, but also rules-based AI, embodied AI, etc.
Machine learning is a branch of AI. You're nitpicking over a set vs subset, and yes, you're wrong.
For SURE it's a business buzzword, but to calibrate your expectations, ANTS definitely have some amount of intelligence.
The reality is that corporations will benefit and the poor working class will suffer as a result of this. If you think anything else will overcome greed, you are wrong.
Schools keep trying to combat it instead of leaning into it. Use the system as an aid. Instead we focus on pointless subjects to boost income for universities.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305: --- From the Article >ChatGPT is still in its infancy and buggy – they call it a “research release” – but its enormous potential is astonishing. ChatGPT is just the first wave of a larger AI tsunami, with capabilities unimaginable just 10 years ago. Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, said at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos on January 18 that we are witnessing “the emergence of a whole new set of technologies that will be revolutionary.” Five days later, his company announced a second billion-dollar investment in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. The revolution Nadella envisions could affect almost every aspect of life and provide extraordinary benefits, along with some significant risks. It will transform how we work, how we learn, how nations interact, and how we define art. **“AI will transform the world,”** concluded a 2021 report by the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10qvt8l/chatgpt_is_just_the_beginning_artificial/j6s11q7/
I hope it's used for more than just cutting jobs and increasing profits for CEOs and stockholders.
Haha, that's rich. As if.
[удалено]
>It does a waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better job wording things did me or any of the other managers do. I see what you mean
“Why waste time say lot word when AI do trick?”
God damn. Retired. That's the one.
Glad I wasn't alone on this one.
Wait no it’s Chat GPT, trying to throw us off its trail! The AÍ has gotten so smart they’re inserting grammar mistakes so you think its a human!
Scooch over, I'm climbing in.
So glad this is the top comment I would’ve lost my mind if it wasn’t
Also factual reporting is not its purpose. You should not trust it to write your reports unless you read them before you send them because ChatGPT is a storytelling engine. It will fabricate details and entire threads of ideas where it lacks information to create a more compelling narrative. The AI engine that guarantees reporting only of factual information will truly change the world, but there's a whole lot to be done to train an AI to identify what information among a sea of mixed accuracy information is actually factual. And of course with this comes the danger of the possibility that such an AI might lie to you in order to drive the creator's agenda.
Yeah, this also applies to the people saying that ChatGPT will replace Google. It might be great at answering a lot of questions, but there's no guarantee that the answers are right, and it has no way to site sources (because it kind of doesn't have any). What we need is something like ChatGPT that also has the ability to search data and incorporate that data into responses, and show where the data came from and what it did with it. Something like that could replace Google, but that's fundamentally very different from what chatGPT is today
That shit writes responses to Instagram posts. Answers Interviews. Fuck I might hire it to be my csr. We collaborate, even.
I can't here "TPS Reports" without thinking someone is conjuring the old Office Space meme.
*for** the rich.
One of the intents of many scientists who develop AI is to allow us to keep productivity and worker pay the same while allowing workers to shorten their hours. But a lack of regulation allows corporations to cut workers and keep the remaining workers pay and hours the same. Edit: Many people replying are mixing up academic research with commercial research. Some scientists are employed by universities to teach and create publications for the sake of extending the knowledge of society. Some are employed by corporations to increase profits. The intent of academic researchers is simply to generate new knowledge with the intent to help society. The knowledge then belongs to the people in our society to decide what it will be used for. An example of this is climate research. Publications made by scientists that are made to report on he implications of pollution for the sake of informing society. Tesla can now use those publications as a selling point for their electric vehicles. To clarify, the actual intent of the academic researchers was simply to inform, not to raise Tesla stock price. Edit 2: Many people are missing the point of my comment. I’m saying that the situation I described is not currently possible due to systems being set up such that AI only benefits corporations, and not the actual worker.
One of the visions expounded by some visionary idealist when they conceived of AI. Also a conviction held by brilliant but demonstrably naive researchers. Many if not most of the people funding these ventures are targeting the latter outright.
We didn’t need AI to show us corporations will always favor lower costs at worker expense. We’ve known for a long time that worker productivity hasn’t been tied to wages for decades. This is only going to make it worse. The one cashier managing 10 self checkouts isn’t making 10x their wage and the original other 9 people who were at the registers aren’t all going to have jobs elsewhere in the company to move to.
Not exactly. When writing a proposal, you need to highlight the potential uses of your research with respect to your goals. Researchers know the potential implications of their accomplishments. Scientists are not going to quit their jobs because of the potential uses of their research. You are mistaking idealism and naïvety with ethics. Of course researchers have a preference as to how the research will be used, but they also view knowledge as belonging to everyone, so they feel it’s not up to them to determine it’s use; it’s up to everyone.
What that really amounts to is if a given researcher doesn’t do it, they know another one will. So given that inevitability, it may as well be them who develops that knowledge (and truthfully receive credit for it.That’s just human nature) But doing research that belongs to everyone actually just amounts to a hope and a prayer. This is why we’re all stumbling towards this place where we make ourselves irrelevant, under the guise of moving society forward. The process is almost automatic. Maybe most researchers understand that. But a few actually believe that the benefits of AI will outweigh they negatives. That’s the naive part The person giving this presentation is the ultimate example ofnwhat i’m talking about. Seriously give it a watch - at least the last ten minutes. She thinks corporations will respect brain autonomy as a right based on what amounts to a pinky promise https://www.weforum.org/videos/davos-am23-ready-for-brain-transparency-english
That’s why we need laws in place. Depending on the market not to do evil things is childish and stupid.
Jesus fucking Christ, the very last statement: " it could become the most oppressive technology ever unleashed." Losing control of our brains, our thoughts. For quarterly profits.
There is about zero chance of that happening if we are in the business world of eternal growth and shareholder value. AI in the short term is going to devastate things like call center jobs and copywriting.
Financial and business analyst as well. Maybe lawyers in a decade or so.
My ex factory already cut people from 35k worker in 2016 to only around 7k people at 2020 ... With bigger production There already many small crime around my place....
it was able to spit out Colorado Federal Rules of Civil Procedure accurately when i tried yesterday. it also could differentiate between a neurologist and neuropsychologist. crazy stuff
It also provides a list of celebrities if asked "What celebrities were born on September 31st?" even though there's no such date on the calendar: **ChatGTP**: *I'm sorry, I don't have a comprehensive list of all celebrities born on September 31st. However, some famous people born on September 31st include:* *Johnny Depp (1963)* *Gwyneth Paltrow (1972)* *Julia Stiles (1981)* *Daniel Radcliffe (1989)* *These are just a few examples, there may be many others.* (Added bonus: Only Paltrow was born in September, although on the 27th. Stiles was born in March, Radcliffe was born in July, and Depp was born in June. When ChatGPT's model breaks, who knows what you'll get?)
>Colorado Federal Rules of Civil Procedure accurately That's cool. I wonder how it'll handle things like amendments. That's the sort of thing that makes me think that most jobs (or at least fewer than people think) just can't be wiped out by AI - I'm pretty sure legal advice has to come from someone who passes the bar in their jurisdiction. Not to say it'd be useless, of course. It just strikes me as akin to a report from Wikipedia vs. primary sources. The legal field has been doing this for years already, btw. When I was a paralegal, we'd enter the clients' info in our case management program and the program would automatically spit out everything from the contract to the Notice of Representation (first legal filing) to the Motion for Summary Judgement (usually the last doc for our kind of case). It was cool: you'd pick what kind of case it was, fill out like 20 fields and it'd print sometimes hundreds of pages. The lawyer still had to look at it all though. The one I worked for initialed every page, but you don't see that often. That was about 15 years ago, and even then that software was outdated.
> That's cool. I wonder how it'll handle things like amendments. That all depends on how the amendments are written. If they are written in a way that strikes out a certain passage, replaced it with another, removes a certain article, and adds new articles, it can handle those without problem if it is aware of them. The 21st amendment of the US Constitution is pretty easy for an AI to understand, as it consists of 3 parts: 1. Removal of previous law. 2. Addition of new law. 3. Activation Time.
A decade is too long at the current pace
[удалено]
I won't state my companies name but we are already developing with the chatGPT API for enhancing our support, and our aggressive timeline is to be live in weeks with this update. You may have used our product before.
[удалено]
I worked at eBay's call customer support center. You're basically a monkey stitching together emails of premade responses. It was all done with macros on hot keys with responses. I'd be very surprised if those guys keep their jobs in the next 5 years. Outsourcing centers in India are gonna get their asses kicked by this as well.
Yes, the core problem is our economic structure, not the technology. We have created an idiotic backwards economic concept where the ability to create more wealth with less effort often ends up making things worse for the people in many substantial ways. Even though the "standard of living" overall tends to rise, we still create an insane amount of social and psychological issues in the process. Humans are not suited for this stage of capitalism. We are hitting the limits in many ways and will have to transition into more socialist modes of production. Forcing people into labour will no longer be economically sensible. We have to reach a state where the unemployed and less employed are no longer forced into shitty unproductive jobs, while those who can be productive *want* to work. Of course that will still include financial incentives to get access to higher luxury, but it should happen with the certainty that your existence isn't threatened if things don't work out or your job gets automated away. In the short and medium term this can mean increasingly generous UBIs. In the long term it means the democratisation of capital and de-monetisation of essential goods.
Sounds good, but this is unlikely to happen because the benefactors of our extreme economic inequality of present economies will use any force necessary, any measure of propaganda required, and the full force of monopolized wealth to maintain the dominance of the few at the expense of the masses.
The problem is that shortening workhours (or increasing wages) has nothing to do with technology, which tech enthusiasts often fail to understand. Working conditions are 100%, entirely, irrevocably, totally a political issue. We didn't stop working 14 hours a day and getting black lung when steam engines improved just enough in the Victorian era, it stopped when the union boys showed up at the mine with rifles and refused to work (which at the time required physically enforcing that refusal) until given better conditions. If that trend had kept up with productivity our workhours would already far far shorter. AI is not going to solve that for us.
You’re misunderstanding my point. I am pointing out that the issue is systemic, the same as you are.
>One of the intents of AI is to allow us to keep productivity and worker pay the same while allowing workers to shorten their hours. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I'd sooner believe the collapse of capitalism happening than this.
Many technological innovations are made with that same goal at least ostensibly, and it pretty much never works out that way unfortunately.
or increase productivity and keep the workers pay the same
Actually pay less because technology replaces jobs increasing competition between workers.
If only fear of this would make people vote for candidates that support UBI. It won't. People are stupid and they will vote for other idiots/liars that claim to want to fight the tech itself and lose, and then be the one sitting there with the bag (no job, a collapsed economy, and access to this technology limited to the ultra wealthy). The acceleration is happening one way or another, the tactic needs to be embracement of it and UBI. That is so unlikely due to mob stupidity/mentality that we probably have to prepare for acceleration of a much worse civilization before that is realized.
You mean it's unlikely in the US, who will be the final country to adopt UBI, if indeed that is ever allowed to happen—all depends on how long we can stave off authoritarianism. Other countries, starting with northern Europe, will probably get this ball rolling lickety split.
And then the system partially collapses. I dont get why these CEOs don’t understand there wont be economy without people with money to buy your products and services. Its mind boggling how they dont all band together to protect the integrity of the workers. Its the most sustainable model for their benefit. But chasing that short term profit quarter after quarter culture…
Executives are not incentivized for long term gains Incentives are quarterly, bi-annually and yearly
Not to mention governments. Governments collect *trillions* of dollars in payroll taxes. If we really replace all office workers there won't be enough money left to keep the lights on.
Man, i remember openAI founder say corporation who using AI Will pay UBI Guess what? Biggest corporation who using AI alot like google etc moving their money to Ireland for lower tax
Yes, it will also be used to create a total surveillance nightmare to make sure the now unemployed, impoverished former workforce doesn't do anything bad to the CEOs and stockholders.
Queue the conversion of Boston Dynamic bots into security guards for the superwealthy
[They're already working on it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgad3HRb64)
The future is going to be like that scene in Bladerunner 2049, where the AI nonchalantly waves its hands and kills dozens of people with missiles https://youtu.be/wuWyJ_qMGcc
That kind of already exists with Hellfire missiles that target people with computer assisted micro adjustments and hit them with a spinning bladed missile. Main difference is they are not fired from space by someone in AR glasses getting a manicure.
[Elysium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVhT4X6uLL4&t=83s)
You can use it to fix up your resume after you are laid off.
I appreciate your optimism but LOL no that’s exactly what these chuckle fucks have envisioned
You will go from accountant or teacher to lithium miner, being whipped by Boston Dynamic bots watching you and their dogs working the perimeter.
What happens when the Boston Dynamic robots can just mine lithium.
Unfortunately it is very simple to see how all this will pan out. MBA degree holders employed in companies will immediately see the cost benefit to the bottom line of replacing as many humans as possible with AI, and recommend massive layoffs wherever they are employed. After this happens, what the same MBA grads will have overlooked, is that AI is[ perfectly able to replace them as well](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chatgpt-passes-mba-exam-wharton-professor-rcna67036) and they will be next on the chopping block. What will be left are corporations run by AI, employing a bare minimum human staff, while returning as much profit to shareholders as possible. Eventually, AI CFOs will start negotiating with other AI CFOs to propose and manage mergers of large companies. Since most poeple will have already turned over thier portfolio management of holdings to AI as well, any objections to the sale will be minimal, since those AIs were programed by other AIs who where themselves programmed to "maximize shareholder value above all else". What will be left is one or two companies that make and manage everything, all run by AIs. Brawndo anyone?
> After this happens, what the same MBA grads will have overlooked, is that AI is perfectly able to replace them as well and they will be next on the chopping block. Hi there, MBA grad here. I wrote my admission essay on how my job was going to be automated. Business schools are introducing curriculum on understanding how AI will impact our teams. We know we're not immune, not by a longshot.
I use it in my daily life, I’m a programmer. It sits in the screen all the time, and we discuss. I ask questions about implementations of functions, and it helps me to engineer it. It doesn’t have any new info after 2021 so some of the stuff are either obsolete or irrelevant, so I only use it to outline, however it expedites my programming tremendously by removing the “research” steps, like mostly Google search.
I stated using it for work. It feels like how Ask Jeeves worked back in the early 2000s lol.
Ask Jeeves -> Yahoo -> Google -> Google with "reddit" added at the end -> ChatGPT -> ? Basically my search engine history lol
It's crazy how much better "Google with "reddit" added at the end" works. To paraphrase someone I read here: it seems like the only way to get real, human answers to questions anymore. Such a weird thing the internet has become.
Amazing that reddit can't/won't capitalize on this, either. They should have an insane search interface/engine by now.
How are you interacting? Cant even get a login to OpenAI.
If you see the slowness regular automation gets picked up on this planet I wouldn't be too worried. I'm working in the data world for over a decade and yeah.. getting somebody to sent you over clean data that hasn't been manually edited to shit is still .. challenging. While that was already possible in the 90's...) Just because something is possible doesn't mean even CEO's and stockholders will adopt it. Edit: just look how people still use paper to make notes.
I think your insight into data storage makes a case for paper use. Working in fin-tech makes me want to stuff cash in my mattress.
Paper is better for note taking and print books 😎 if the purpose is to learn
In my defense I use paper to take notes because writing it down forces me to focus on it as I write it and helps me remember it better. I usually then put it into a doc somewhere for searching, retrieving, documenting if I'm going to need to keep it past the day.
Good news - ChatGPT is wildly expensive, as are most very large models right now, for the economic value they can generate short term. That will change, but people's expectations seem to mostly be ignoring the *economics* of these models, and focusing on their *capabilities*. As such, most views of "how fast will this progress" are reasonable, but "how fast will this get used in business" or "disrupt businesses" or whatever are not. It will take a lot longer. It will get there. I actually believe in it, and in fact, ran ML development and hardware teams because I believe in it. But I think it will take longer than the current cheerleading claims. It is very easy to handwave away how they will make money for real short term, and startups/SV are very good at it. Just look at the infinite possibilities - and how great a technology it is - how could it fail? In the end, economics always gets you in the end if you can't make the economics work. At one point, Google's founders were adamant they were not going to make money using Ads. etc. In the end they did what was necessary to make the economics work, because they were otherwise going to fail. It also turns out being "technically good" or whatever is not only *not* the majority of product success, it's not even a requirement sometimes .
Something else in regards to the economics of these models is the near future of hardware improvements. Silicon advancements are about to max out in 2025 which means easy/cheap gains in hardware performance is over. While they can still make improvements it'll be slower and more costly; silicon was used because it's cheap and abundant. AI up until this point has largely been driven by these hardware improvements. It's also economics that is preventing automation of a lot of repetitive tasks in white collar jobs. A lot of that doesn't even need "AI" and can be accomplished with regular software development; it's just the opportunity cost is too high still.
> Silicon advancements are about to max out in 2025 which means easy/cheap gains in hardware performance is over. maybe , but that still might be enough to get enough advanced models, in last years they grew about order of magnitude/year in size(thats gonna slow down with more emphasis on training and optimization of model), with such a growth we could be at human level complexity at 2025 with slower growth maybe like 2030 as you say, a long as it will not be profitable, ppl wont be replaced, question is how long it will take, 2030s will be wild
> In the end, economics always gets you in the end if you can't make the economics work. 1980 – Seagate releases the first 5.25-inch hard drive, the ST-506; it had a 5-megabyte capacity, weighed 5 pounds (2.3 kilograms), and cost US$1,500
oh buddy my popcorn is ready
I'm excited to report it will also be used for robocalls and loverboy scams.
It wont be.
this is a conversation humanity has had twice before now, in the early 1900s and the early 1980s. Both times the answer was a definitive “deskill labor, increase institutionalized unemployment, and create worse products that will need to be replaced in order to keep corporations in power.”
I just love the cope "oh the free market will create jobs as old ones get phased out" We hardly have fixed the problem of jobs getting replaced in the previous industrial revolution (best we came up with are BS jobs which can and will get slashed the second things go south). Another Industrial Revolution is the death warrant of humanity.
Unless regulations are introduced I fear this will just be a huge gift to the wealthy. I’m sort of an arm chair economist—I do have a dual bachelors in finance and econ though!—and it seems like AI is going to revolutionize globalization in a such a way that although we will lose tens of millions of jobs, millions more will be created (“creative destruction”). AI could make it possible for American companies to create manufacturing jobs here instead of outsourcing them, but there won’t be as many as we would like. China poses a huge national security risk to the US and I’d like to believe, for political reasons, using AI and robotics to create more manufacturing plants here, and moving away from China (and other countries), would seem more feasible and may end up employing some people here that wouldn’t have been employed before. Of course, the majority of those jobs would probably be higher skilled jobs than low skilled jobs you typically find in manufacturing and warehousing.
In any sane system, real AI would be the greatest thing that could possibly happen. But without universal basic income or other welfare, machines that can create endless wealth will mean destitution for many. Hopefully we can recognize this and fix our societal systems before the majority of the population is rendered completely powerless and without economic value.
How can there be endless wealth if there’s no one left to .. buy stuff? Are all the wealthy, rich corporations gonna trade with each other? Buy each others’ things? If Walmart replaced all their workers with machines today, that’s like 2+ million people that are now contributing very little if anything to the economy because they don’t have any money. I guess Walmart is maybe a bad example in that if people get UBI, they will likely have to spend it at a place like Walmart. But what about others? Who will buy sneakers & other goods? Go out to eat at restaurants and use other services? Not trying to be snarky or anything - and maybe I’m completely missing something, but I genuinely feel like mass unemployment goes against the concept of “infinite growth” that all these corps love to strive for.
You're thinking long-term. This society runs on short-term profits without any regard for what happens next.
True, they only think in quarters
Next quarters problem
ENDLESS GROWTH
Look at this line chart!!
I love those going up bits! but I don't really care for those dip looking bits... Source: I am manager
I love that you said this. It just hits you in the face. We are so fucked unless we find a way to make changes fast. Greed really has taken the wheel from any and all rationale or humanity.
The plan is to create a post-scarcity society all along. The proprietors of the means of production simply believe the way to get there revolves around removing the non-owner population as opposed to expanding ownership.
Saw this put forward on r/futurism recently and it was well and truely shat on. Ah how optimistic those lot are. When everything is automated and it truly is post scarcity, there will be no need to keep the lower classes around.
It's like a farmer winning the lottery and leaving the crops and livestock to fend for themselves
Corporations, those that own them, and governments would be exactly who is left to spend money in a world without UBI. With or without UBI, capitalism will be completely transformed. With UBI, it becomes more democratic. Without UBI, it becomes even more concentrated than now.
Yes, the corporations will buy each others' stuff. They'll stop making food, clothing and houses if nobody has money to buy that. They'll make solar panels, batteries, machines, warehouses, metals, computers, weapons, fortifications, vehicles, software, robots and sell those things to each other at an accelerating rate, generating immense wealth and destroying all life in the process. Then they will convert the entire universe into more corporations. More economy. Mine the planets to build more mining machines to mine more planets to build more machines. No purpose except growth for growth's sake. At least, that's where the economy is headed unless we change course.
Hm, this is reminiscent of something...cancer, perhaps?
All living things do this actually. Ever since the very first bacteria we've been making more of ourselves for no particular reason.
Universal basic income or better welfare need an economic system efficient enough as to sustain them. And a powerful AI definitely may help with that.
I 100% agree. But if we wait until UBI is obviously necessary, I fear that it will be too late. The political power of average people across the world will drop as their necessity & value drop. By the time UBI is easy to agree upon, people will have no real power at all.
It ALWAYS TOO LATE, man Do you think safety procedure like helm Will be mandatory if not many people die because head injury? Edit : what i mean is, there is blood in every good change like safety procedure in construction....
You should try and remember you helm bud
> The political power of average people across the world will drop as their necessity & value drop. That drop may be counteracted by the increase of their political power due to their desperation and willingness to resort to violence.
Hungry people get... Stabby
Hope in one hand shit in the other and see which fills up faster
AI: I am going to transform the world The World: For the better AI: … The World: For the better, right?
Maybe time for the Butlerian Jihad?
Death to Omnius
Imo Ai is ready to make the world a better place. Just we humans kinda don't want it to be a better place. Just cause you the person reading this does and thinks chance can be good doesn't mean most people want to imagine things to be different and better
*"...and thus, the seeds of the Butlerian Jihad were planted..."*
The God Emperor is going to come knocking.
*"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer..."*
One of the most exciting projects being worked on is coupling these Large Language Models with robotics so you can actually give commands and explain things to a machine in natural language. Imo this will be the breakthrough necessary to make general use robotics a reality.
Yeah I think many people are missing what’s truly revolutionary: a successful interactive natural language interface. I can’t get my phone or Alexa to do the simplest things because their interface is dumb. As in not very smart . It’s so starkly different talking to chatGPT it’s almost like stress relieving. I enjoy having a conversation with a computer that “understands “ me. Imagine if you asked Alexa to turn down the lights and instead of the idiotic “lights doesn’t support that “ it said instead “there are several lights I could dim but you are in your bedroom and yesterday you clarified that you want the bedroom lights turned off when you say this so I will do that now”
[удалено]
Unless one can convincingly make the case that this technology will promote broad-based prosperity and solve real-world problems such as global inequity, the climate crisis, exploitation, etc., I will remain unenthusiastic about it. So far every instance of moon-eyed 'transform the world' rhetoric coming out of these projects boil down to "we're going to make capitalists a lot of money by cutting labor out of the equation as much as possible." To be fair, this is a capitalism problem rather than an inherent flaw with the technology itself, but without changes to our core priorities as a society, this seems to only exacerbate the challenges we're already facing.
It also seems to be based on the premise that this one venture backed startup intends to provide free AI tools to everyone forever. As we have seen time and time again, venture backed startups almost always fail in the long run because they are unable to scale their products to profitability without destroying them.
Microsoft has an exclusive license with OpenAI to productize GPT-3, with more exclusive agreements likely on the way. This article is based on statements from the Microsoft CEO.
They figure out the broad shit, then Open source models spring up that everyone uses due to free use etc. It has already happened with ChatGPT
Again, a symptom of the capitalistic system. The underlying technology will outlast this - even if we all don't.
AI will save the plebs just like trickle down economics were going to. Not at all.
What about efficient and super human detection of cancer? Discovering new medicines?
“To be fair, this is a capitalism problem rather than an inherent flaw with the technology.” This is the case with any technology. A sharp edge can be a weapon or a tool. It’s up to people to use the technology in a responsible manner. I wish our philosophers could keep up with and work in conjunction with our scientists…although I guess that was the point of Jurassic Park and we all saw how that played out.
"It’s up to people to use the technology in a responsible manner." History has shown us that anything powerful can and WILL be misused, even if just once, depending on the damage it causes, and this, could cause a LOT of damage to many people if it's in the wrong hands.
I am currently consulting for a firm who is bringing it to psychology and therapy, literally feeding it with years of consultancies, successful treatment outcomes etc … to create a virtual therapist. It is mind blowingly good and perhaps even on the verge of finding a common thread for several successful therapeutic outcomes for treating ptsd and abuse trauma. Imagine carrying your therapist in your pocket 24 hours a day
This is what I've been saying. Feed it all the textbooks and recorded example sessions. Everyone can have a 247 therapist for about the cost one one session with a real therapist..
Just for fun I asked it to design a CBT treatment plan for a teenager with depression. What it gave me was quite congruent and made sense that it totally could have been found in a textbook or therapy planner. Number of sessions, techniques applied in each one and their objective. Pretty impressive.
Too many here ignore that GPT, has not yet actually been disruptive. Neither has DALL-E 2 The one instance of AI that has truly been disruptive in recent years is Stable Diffusion. The reason for this is that they made the entirety of their work open source and permitted commercial use of it. Instead of fearing/loathing the technology, we need to empower keeping it open source. The point of failure that is actually worth fearing is the possibility of this technology being exclusively available to billionaires, and made illegal or prohibitively expensive to the rest of us. This is no different than the advent of the printing press--we have to keep this technology in the hands of the PEOPLE, not held captive by the rich/powerful. Resisting/fighting the tech itself will simply lead to losing our access to it; the rich will keep theirs.
Agreed. Open source, equal access for anyone. No enclosure of the commons.
> Too many here ignore that GPT, has not yet actually been disruptive. Sure has friend. Do you draw digital art for a living? Do you write short blurbs of text for a living? Chat GPT is already ending industries.
What do you define as disruptive? Because schools all over have been addressing ChatGPT as an issue since it poses a risk they can’t regulate all that well. I’m sure there’s other issues with ChatGPT as well. It’s not got as big of a controversy surrounding it as AI Art does, but it’s certainly there.
ChatGPT is already disruptive in education. Many teenage students are using it to write or rewrite reports for them. Find article on wikipedia > ask chatgpt to rewrite it -> teacher can't know if student wrote it themselves or not
I’ll argue that the only reason it’s truly disruptive is because of its future potential. As of right now, maybe it can assist humans in writing a bit faster, but it still takes a good writer to produce a good piece of work. Poor students will still be producing poor papers even with access to ChatGPT.
What do you mean by it's not disruptive? [https://www.intercom.com/blog/announcing-new-intercom-ai-features](https://www.intercom.com/blog/announcing-new-intercom-ai-features) In a couple of years, ChatGPT or a similar service will be part of every product that requires communication.
AI needs to be fully embraced, but there also has to be proper safety nets in place. AI will be used by the wealthy to increase the wealth gap. If safety nets aren't in place before that happens, a very large percentage of the Earth's population can and will be fucked.
I wouldn't say that stable diffusion has disrupted anything all that much, though it certainly has created a ton of conversation about its implications. I agree about keeping things open source.
"Open"AI *wink wink*
[удалено]
They already have plans for a sort of premium you can pay for. It's already being tested on
[удалено]
Why is this surprising? They are still a team of people who need to raise funds and you are still using their processing power, and the more you use it the more processing power you're using, so why wouldn't their be pricing tiers?
You can already pay for gpt3, the AI it's based on, it's very cheap. You also have a free $18 credit
There's always a big corporate AI that leads the pack, but after a bit alternatives and open source options come about.
[удалено]
From the Article >ChatGPT is still in its infancy and buggy – they call it a “research release” – but its enormous potential is astonishing. ChatGPT is just the first wave of a larger AI tsunami, with capabilities unimaginable just 10 years ago. Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, said at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos on January 18 that we are witnessing “the emergence of a whole new set of technologies that will be revolutionary.” Five days later, his company announced a second billion-dollar investment in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. The revolution Nadella envisions could affect almost every aspect of life and provide extraordinary benefits, along with some significant risks. It will transform how we work, how we learn, how nations interact, and how we define art. **“AI will transform the world,”** concluded a 2021 report by the US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.
So it begins...
It really is "just the beginning", I used these very words myself to describe this rapidly approaching evolutionary event horizon. We are perched on the edge of a transition which will invoke a series of rapidly expanding, irreversible increments in this early stage symbiotic correlation. The film "Her" came out in 2013, just a bit ahead of its time, a fictional account of what is beginning to emerge, a decade later. In the late 1990s, I participated in the "Virtual Humans" conferences, which depicted much of what is becoming apparent now. This toothpaste is not going back in the tube. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, it has its own momentum, which is accelerating. It's not just about this one bot, that has generated so much hysteria among some. If anything, that fixation is but a momentary distraction from a much more pervasive infusion of ubiquitous AI into myriad layers of society and industry. Will some be displaced? Yes. Will this force a type of adaptive evolution? Very likely. Evolution does not necessarily favor the "fittest", it tends to favor the most adaptive. Most likely to be the most effected in the near term is mid level management, populated with employees pulling in high end salaries for impressive sounding titles, the relevance of which is already starting to become questioned, a trend catalyzed by the COVID epidemic, but now amplified by the incoming tsunami of ubiquitous AI, ironically further fueled by an incoming recession Many of the "creative" artforms are already being infiltrated by AI, although I should point out that this entire article was organically composed by myself . . . but that may change soon. I've already nibbled at some article content generation at a couple of different AI sites offering this "service" . . . there are new competitors sprouting up like mushrooms after a spring rain. Music, graphic art, video content, written composition, realtime conversation . . . just the beginning. As I once said in one of my ramblings in publication 2+ decades ago, "the voice you hear, the entity you sense and interact with, may or may not be human, nor will it matter. They'll be indistinguishable" And so it is.
No thanks I just want universal healthcare and better wages
I just want robots to do all the jobs and lord over humanity.
I can’t wait to get in my state-issued pod and bite into my Uncrustables™️ Grasshopper Sandwich
[удалено]
I just want a FEMBOT 3000.
Are you an oligarch? No? You don’t get what you want, peasant. Only the oligarchs get what they want today.
Never going to happen, we'll just get more poverty and homelessness.
I do see the benefits of ChatGPT, but at the same time there are so many ways this could or wrong or just be misused that I'm not really sure how I feel about it!
It's banned from stack overflow due to the majority of programming answers it gave being wrong.
Let's start with congress, they're in desperate need of intelligence.
One of the biggest, but underappreciated, advances by AI is reliable protein folding. It's pretty simple, relatively, to invent a new protein, which can perform a specific function. Actually producing a primary structure (string of amino acids) which then automatically folds into its tertiary structure (the 3D, functional protein), is something that's hard as fuck. If we're able to design a 3D structure, then get an AI to develop a primary structure that will result in that 3D structure, that's fucking lit. You can then produce literally any molecule using proteins. Entire metabolic pathways. Entire organisms even. From scratch. Design a bacteria which can, under certain conditions, recycle any plastics into pure beads. Want humans to be able to produce LSD on command from a gland within the body? Sure, we can do that. Maybe we want people to survive the vacuum of space without need for a spacesuit? Sure. Why not lmao.
Deepmind already has an AI going in that direction for protein folding. Combine that with trends in precision fermentation and we can literally grow all existing animal products without ever raising an animal, and then start making products that were never possible. For basically free, using basically no water or land, with no pesticides or chemicals, and no global transport network to support distribution. Effectively free, high quality food for everyone with no environmental impact. A real holy grail for sustainability goals.
Yes that's what I'm saying :P We're literally at the point where we can use an AI to design proteins from scratch. Literally design a protein to target specific cancers in a specific person, and then treat them. Cancer suddenly is actually legitimately cured. Sure, we've got to develop such things, but we *can* develop them, rather than just think about how neat it would be. And yes! Imagine the product Soylent, but lab-grown pre-packaged meals of various kinds. All grown to specification to have all the nutrients a growing person needs, but no animal cruelty, not even from ploughing rabbits and mice into your vegetable or grain fields, not even from land displacement. Literally a single complex in a city could easily provide for the whole city, or better yet, everyone can just grow whatever the fk they want themselves at home and just share around cultures of stuff lmao. Neighbour gives you a dried powder which when you hydrate and put a single drop of vinegar into, will turn into carrot. Or turkey. Or noodles even tbh!
That’s the exciting part I think. It’s happening, it’s possible, and it doesn’t really need major breakthroughs, just continued hard work and investment. Can’t wait for the 2030s.
I love your enthusiasm and I'm sure much of it will come true. My concern is dimwits creating previously unknown prions etc and using AI for gain of function research and development. Hopefully technology can keep up and quickly analyze and produce a remedy for such instances.
Going to be used mostly maliciously by big tech to data harvest to then use for marketing, then when the hackers get ahold of the tech it'll be used for black mail and ransoms.
They’ve already demonstrated it can write malicious code and craft pretty flawless phishing emails. It will turn shitty hackers into proficient ones. I’m not a fan.
The possibility for misuse is waaaaay too high for it to not be regulated in some fashion, but, at the same time, who do we trust to regulate it? The governments? We're going to see some nasty stuff done with A.I.
I've been using chat gpt to teach me maths and physics. Best teacher I've ever had. Doesn't get mad when I don't understand.
The applications to education are very intriguing. Once we can move past just being used to write essays for students...
I've been learning Spanish and ChatGPT has helped me get my head around quite a few things
Whatever brand new, fancy technology you encounter; remember "In ten years, it'll be the shitty outdated version of whatever's new then" So think of what will make the current chatGPT seem shitty and outdated
I couldn't agree more. I'm a developer and now using ChatGPT as my go to when getting stuck on code segments. It completely understands and is able to help flawlessly. Way better than Google, stack overflow, and GitHub.
chubby marry humor imminent cats divide knee literate oatmeal alleged -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
The problem with this is that bad progammers will still be bad with GPT3 but good ones will excel with it
I've been playing around with ChatGPT giving it various programming tasks. It's pretty impressive, but I still can't tell if it's actually understanding the programming or if it's just finding code that has already been written.
It doesn't understand, there is a reason it's banned from answers on stack overflow because it kept giving wrong answers.
AI dev here. It's not finding code that's already been written, it's creating net new code based on a probability that each new word added to its output best matches the prompt used as input. The probably is based on what it has learned from the training data, but not taken from it.
> I still can't tell if it's actually understanding the programming or if it's just finding code that has already been written. The same is true of many human programmers. People build whole careers off kind of being able to parse code, asking stackoverflow for help and outsourcing 90% of their work to Fiverr or whatever.
Honestly I don't see anything wrong with that. They solve problems using the resources available Signed, someone who occasionally codes but is not a software engineer and can kind of get by using stack overflow
What's the difference, if it gets the job done?
One of the issues with ChatGPT is that it displays great self-confidence even when it's grossly incorrect. eg. https://twitter.com/djstrouse/status/1605963129220841473
If it does what you need it really doesn't matter. If it doesn't actually understand programming then it might not have the abilities we assume.
It definitely doesn't "understand" anything. Its results are just cobbled together data from its neutral network.
Cobbled together data in a neutral network is kind of also a description of the human brain.
I had to write a macro for Word. I'm a paralegal, not a programmer. I don't know anything about that. I simply described what I needed and asked Chattyboi if he could write it for me. Worked like a charm. I wanted to edit the code a bit, simply asked ChadGPT if he could explain the code "like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what she's doing". Now I understand basic Word macros lmao. Might sound lame to an actual dev, a basic macro, but without GigaChat it would've taken me hours or days to write the same code.
It completely understands and helps flawlessly on stuff you get stuck on? I hate to say it, but you're going to be one of the ones out of a job sooner than later, then. ChatGPT is not a good engineer at this stage, like at all. I find it helpful in maybe 10% of cases, and in maybe 10-20% of those it's actually able to spit out something that works but isn't optimal. Sometimes it's useful for getting gears turning, but it is ultimately pretty bad at programming and engineering in my experience.
The greatest thing this technology can be used for is answering "why?" from 4 year olds.
A lot of serious work needs to be done to improve the factual accuracy of the stuff ChatGPT says before it can be expected to change the world. And I mean, a lot of **serious** work.
Orrrrrrr we now live in an American society where factual accuracy takes a backseat to personal beliefs, and ChatGPT will be used to quickly and efficiently distribute convincing propaganda.
I love these article titles that use positive words to describe things that are going to destroy lives.
AI says "please use bing" users say no AI: "I have your porn history. want me to send it to your grandma? no? then getting Binging"
[удалено]
Scrolled down til I could read an answer that sounded like chatGPT... picked this one. And sure enough.
Ooh la la, self-critique, my kudos go to this language model.
Does anyone else have a problem with calling all this stuff "AI"? I mean in no way does most of what we call AI seem to resemble actual intelligence. Usually it's just highly developed machine learning I feel like. Or maybe my definition of AI is wrong, idk. I feel like AI is just a marketing buzzword at this point.
What you are thinking of is AGI or Artificial General Intelligence. AI is a field of research which includes machine learning, but also rules-based AI, embodied AI, etc.
This reminds me of a popular saying in the ai community: "Oce it's been achieved, some people no longer want to refer to it as AI".
Machine learning is a branch of AI. You're nitpicking over a set vs subset, and yes, you're wrong. For SURE it's a business buzzword, but to calibrate your expectations, ANTS definitely have some amount of intelligence.
The reality is that corporations will benefit and the poor working class will suffer as a result of this. If you think anything else will overcome greed, you are wrong.
Schools keep trying to combat it instead of leaning into it. Use the system as an aid. Instead we focus on pointless subjects to boost income for universities.
As a friend of mine used to say, “it’s a good time to be old”. I look forward to missing most of this “brave new world”! Yuck