mrshadowgoose

il y a 12 joursdiscuss

The conclusion of this blog post is a bit hysterical. The intent of this steg is excruciatingly clear (identifying usage by Chinese firms that may be conducting model distillation). It's unclear on how this "punishes normal developers" in any shape or form.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 3 moisdiscuss

And even if that's true (and it frequently is!), detractors usually miss the underlying and immense impact of "sleeping dad capability" equivalent artificial systems.

Horizontally scaling "sleeping dads" takes decades, but inference capacity for a sleeping dad equivalent model can be scaled instantly, assuming one has the hardware capacity for it. The world isn't really ready for a contraction of skill dissemination going from decades to minutes.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 3 moisdiscuss

> Not "hidden", but probably more like "no one bothered to look".

Well yeah. There weren't enough "someones" available to look. There are a finite number of qualified individuals with time available to look for bugs in OSS, resulting in a finite amount of bug finding capacity available in the world.

Or at least there was. That's what's changing as these models become competent enough to spot and validate bugs. That finite global capacity to find bugs is now increasing, and actual bugs are starting to be dredged up. This year will be very very interesting if models continue to increase in capability.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

It's doom and gloom because the underlying game theory forces all state actors into an unbound and irresponsible arms race, consequences be damned.

AI development game theory is extremely similar to the game theory behind nuclear arms development, but worse (nuclear weaponry was born from Human General Intelligence, and is therefore a subset of the potential of AI development). Failing to be the most capable actor could put one in a position of permanent loss of autonomy/agency at the whims of more capable actors.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 8 moisdiscuss

Unfun thought experiment: In an AGI scenario, what lever of power do the UBI recipients have to force what you've described?

Historically, humanity's biological monopoly on the fundamental resource of "general intelligence" has always been that lever. Looking at the world today, it's pretty clear that democracies are just a temporary balance between the general contempt of the powerful towards commoners, and the fact that the powerful begrudgingly need our economic utility, which is ultimately based on our general intellect. Even callous dictatorships had to exercise partial restraint on violence and murder, to retain a pool of general intellect.

AGI will be a multiple-whammy here:

- most people will become economically worse-than-useless, they will be a total liability on the rich and powerful

- those same people are unlikely to be given access to any levers of power or influence, because they no longer have anything of value to provide to the rich and powerful

- AGI in combination with robotic platforms, after a certain threshold, will permit for insurmountable policing. The "rise up against the robots" cliches we see in film simply become impossible after a certain point.

I desperately hope we end up wielding AI to usher in a post-scarcity utopia, but looking at the types of people who own the world...we'll get what we're allowed to get.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 9 moisdiscuss

I used to think that "AI operating in meatspace" was going to remain a tough problem for a long time, but seeing the dramatic developments in robotics over the last 2 years, it's pretty clear that's not going to be the case.

As the masses fade into permanent unemployment, this will likely coincide with (and be partially caused by) a corresponding proliferation in intelligent humanoid robots.

At a certain point, "turning on them" becomes physically impossible.

mrshadowgoose

l’année dernièrediscuss

Yes, I am quite aware that the current generation of space-based telescopes are quite limited. And it's solely due to the historically extreme cost of mass to orbit.

The largest proposed ground observatories already use segmented mirrors. One can use the same approach in space, it's only a matter of launch cost.

mrshadowgoose

l’année dernièrediscuss

> Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people?

It doesn't, and admittedly I don't really care that much.

I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet, one of the most transformative and enabling technologies in existence, than niche hobbyists being mildly encumbered. And most people likely fall into the same camp.

As already mentioned, I find it really hard to believe that the common person whining about "the poor amateur astronomers" are being sincere. Some of them likely are, but "finding any reason possible to whine about billionaires" seems to be vogue these days.

mrshadowgoose

l’année dernièrediscuss

I am entirely convinced that absent LEO comsat constellations, people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people".

If you genuinely care about the field of astronomy, rest assured that the same falling launch costs that have enabled LEO comsat constellations, will enable the launch of fleets of space-based telescopes.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 2 ansdiscuss

Spool goes on the descending module.

> would think the best option would be a somewhat high power radio transmitter/receiver.

If you can figure this one out, the militaries of the world would love to have a chat with you. Water/ice is ridiculously good at attenuating EM. It's a huge issue with submarine communications.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

I think you've mistakenly scoped my point to solely "the dating game". Physical discrimination in that scope if of course, completely understandable, and IMO completely okay.

However, it's been shown repeatedly that "fuckability" results in better treatment in most other aspects of one's life, including things like job opportunities, career progression, and general treatment in non-romantic social interactions. All of these are scopes that modern society hyperfocuses on when race or gender are involved. That's the hypocritical aspect of it.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 4 ansdiscuss

I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy of all of this. A portion of attractiveness is culture-invariant, and quantifiable based on measurable factors such as facial symmetry. Study after study have demonstrated that humans innately treat attractive individuals better than others.

Yet we obsess over skin colour and genitalia, without a single peep about the physical appearance discrimination that most humans take part in.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 5 ansdiscuss

"The driver said she was using Autopilot"

"she had actually had the same kind of collision on Autopilot previously!"

I've got a hypothesis...and it has nothing to do with autopilot being faulty.

mrshadowgoose

il y a 5 ansdiscuss

I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that on my end it's not contempt in the least bit. Rather, it's excitement at the hope of an amazing future; one in which people who work do so because they choose to, and not because they have to. A future in which we can celebrate life, creativity, hobbies, friends and family, without having to toil away the majority of our waking life to obtain the means of survival.

One can absolutely admire the skill of a bricklayer, while celebrating the eventual fact that bricklayers will not be forced to perform that labor if they don't want to. Those are not mutually exclusive things.

"We haven't automated driving"

One can, today, fly to Phoenix Arizona, download the Waymo app, and summon a self-driving vehicle. Although it would be disingenuous to claim that self-driving is a completely solved problem for ALL use cases, it absolutely is "good enough" for very many of them, and will be scaled out faster than you expect.

"but many more have not and most likely never will be."

Unless there's some yet-to-be-discovered supernatural process at-work inside the human brain, this is just plain false. The human brain is an incredibly complicated machine, and nothing more. It's only a matter of time until we understand, or in the worst case, simulate it with sheer computational power.

comments