How can you take the market for billions when you are investing hundreds and hundreds of billions? Amazon overtook Walmart and cloud computing, they have a solid business model, and I doubt even a business that size could pay down that outlay. Are we really saying that by some miracle OpenAI, or Anthropic are going to find a use case that would make places like Amazon and Apple look like relatively small business?
What if PTSD therapy focusses on accepting things you can't control and sitting with the pain? That's how I work through anxiety, and depression. I know it will never be gone, I don't try and set expectations to live without anxiety, I just try and sit with it, and accept it.
Much of mental trauma is about acknowledging it, and learning to live with it. There is no cure for PTSD, even Ketamine is short acting, not a long term solution, and indeed Ketamine simply helps you sit with the suffering in a different light.
LLMs aren't trading off anything. It's not like they make a decision based on anything other than what they are guided to do in training or in the system prompt.
It's like saying Reddit trades off one comment for another, yeah - an algorithm they wrote does that.
This article seems to allude to the idea there is a ghost in the machine, and while there is a lot of emergent behavior rather than hard coded algorithms, it's not like the LLM has an opinion, or some sort of psychology/personality based values.
They could change the system prompt, bias some training, and have completely different outcomes.
Hardly, they are burning money with TikSlop, they don't even know how to monetize it, just YOLO'd the product to keep investors interested.
Even the porn industry can't seem to monetize AI, so I doubt OpenAI who knows jack shit about this space will be able to.
Fact is generative AI is stupidly expensive to run, and I can't see mass adoption at subscription prices that actually allow them to break even.
I'm sure folks have seen the commentary on the cost of all this infrastructure. How can an LLM business model possibly pay for a nuclear power station, let alone the ongoing overheads of the rest of the infrastructure? The whole thing just seems like total fantasy.
I don't even think they believe they are going to reach AGI, and even if they did, and if companies did start hiring AI agents instead of humans, then what? If consumers are out of work, who the hell is going to keep the economy going?
I just don't understand how smart people think this is going to work out at all.
So you have two AIs colluding against you now. Who is holding the AI-assist to account? It's like who polices the police, except we understand human psychology enough to have a level of predictability for how police can be governed reliably, we don't understand any truths about an AGI because an AGI will always have the doubt of it deceiving, or even making unchecked catastrophic assumptions that we trust because it's beyond our pay-grade to understand.
There are so many ways we have misplaced confidence with what is essentially a system we don't really understand fully. We just keep anthropomorphizing the results and thinking "yeah, this is how humans think so we understand". We don't know for sure if that's true, or if we are being deceived, or making fundamental errors in judgement due to not having enough data.
This is an assumption, how would you know if you have alignment? AGI could appear to align, just as a psychopath appears studies and emulates well behaved people. Imagine that at a scale we can't possibly understand. We don't really know how any of these emergent behaviors really work, we just throw more data and compute and fine tunings at it, bake it, and then see.
We don't know if a supreme deceiver is aligned at all. If a model can think ahead a trillion moves of deception how do humans possibly stand a chance of scrutinizing anything with any confidence?
I thought we were talking about state of the art agentic general AI that can plan ahead, reason, and execute. Basically something that can perform at human level intelligence must be able to be as dangerous as humans. And no, I don't think it would be bad training data that we are aware of. My opinion is we don't necessarily know what training data will result in bad behavior, and philosophically it is possible we will be in a world with a model that pretends it's dumber than it is, flunks tests intentionally, in order to manipulate and produce false confidence in a model until it has enough freedom to use it's agency to secure itself from human control.
I know that I don't know a lot, but all of this sounds to me to be at least hypothetically possible if we really believe AGI is possible.
"AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans"
How do you know? LLMs can't even be properly scrutinized, while humans at least follow common psychology and patterns we've understood for thousands of years. This actually makes humans more predictable and manageable than you might think.
The wild part is that LLMs understand us way better than we understand them. The jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4 even surprised the engineers who built it. That should raise some red flags about how "predictable" these systems really are.
Think about it - we can't actually verify what these models are capable of or if they're being truthful, while they have this massive knowledge base about human behavior and psychology. That's a pretty concerning power imbalance. What looks like lower risk on the surface might be hiding much deeper uncertainties that we can't even detect, let alone control.
I don't think any military captains, and colonels will be testifying on oath to the existence of Bigfoot in front of Congress. So no, that's not next.
What's actually happening is pretty crazy and anyone who has a small amount of curiosity should give it some consideration. It seems foolish just to dismiss this with a scoff.
No one uses a mag reader here in Canada. Europe ditto, and sounds like the antipodes too. I don't know anyone who doesn't have RFID cards, debit or credit. Swiping a card through a mag reader is the backup option alone here.
Human society is made up of individuals. Capitalism, as opposed to socialism puts the power of utility in the hands of the individual. Thus individuals strive to make the most of the economic landscape and this often means making as much money as they can.
Again, I am not saying it's perfect but it's worked pretty well for western values.
I imagine that when you are playing at the top of your game, everything seems like a game and that's the way you talk about it. Buffet is solely focussed on winning bets, that's how he got to where he is. People like Buffet fill a slot that is at the very foundation of capitalism. If you are terrified of rich, powerful business people you are in the wrong economic model. So far we are yet to find a better model, IMO.