• dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s grifting, pure and simple. All those things may be possible but Sam Altman is spewing this line of bullshit to keep the venture capital flowing into his company.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      8 months ago

      Exactly. As a SW engineer, I don’t know how far we are from an AGI exactly, but I am confident enough Altman and openAi have no idea where to even start.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        As a software engineer that works in AI, the “breakthrough” we’ve made is in proving that LLM’s can perform well at scale, and that hallucinations aren’t as big a problem as initially thought. Most tech companies didn’t do what OpenAI did because hallucinations are brand-damaging, whereas OpenAI didn’t give a fuck. In the next few years, all existing AI systems will be through LLM’s, and probably as good at ChatGPT.

        We might make more progress now that researchers and academics see the value in LLM’s, but my weakly held opinion is that it’s mostly surrounded by hype.

        We’re nowhere near what most would call AGI, although to be blunt, I don’t think the average person on here could truly tell you what that looks like without disagreeing with AI researchers.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        In Venice he never claims that he will be the one to do these things, at least in that tweet he doesn’t claim to be the one that’s going to do those things.

        I’m not sure what the line about creating new realities means. I assume he means VR and not that AI is going to give us the ability to access hyperspace or something.

  • juiceclaws@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The current state of capitalism will ensure the second line never sees the light of day

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I don’t think so.

            What, it seems stupid to you that monopolies created using copyright and patent laws designed to benefit domestic companies I call mercantilism? Bailing out companies “too big to fail” is regulation too. Health in USA is so expensive because it’s regulated to work this way.

            There are plenty of regulations, just not those you’d want, too bad.

    • erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      We can already create enough abondance that no human starves, sleep outside or can’t affotd medical treatment. Still look at the world.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      No no, they’re desperately looking for that, because gating infinite abundance away from the plebs will be amazing for quarterly profits and entertainment! Think of all the reality shows you can make by pitting the poor against themselves!

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Abundance is already here, tons of food are destroyed and thrown out when they accidentally make too much while people are starving, there’s no money in abundance, it’s the artificial lack of supply that keeps prices high and profits soaring.

    • Llewellyn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Food isn’t the only resource in the equation. Most of the resources are limited and even diminishing.

      • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I agree but I think their point was more along the lines of “Even if we have complete abundance of everything (as in, the capabilities to produce anything in abundance), capitalists will continue to create artificial lack of supply to continue profiting off of the workers. For example, look at the food abundance we have”

        • Llewellyn
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          capitalists will continue to create artificial lack of supply

          I think it’s not that, but just:

          capitalists won’t spend their money to create logistical chains for free.

          “Collect and distribute supply” won’t do itself, someone should do that. And noone will do that for free

      • Jojo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not sure if “most” is necessarily true without a careful definition of resource, but I’ll certainly accept “many”.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The first paragraph? Can’t say I disagree.

    Second paragraph? Delusional. Or actively deceitful. Given Altman’s background, I’m leaning toward the second.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s enough to look at how much stuff is available in a supermarket, or in the average, home, to know we live in an age of abundance. The problem is, is that abundance is not shared, but hoarded.

        We have enough food to feed the world, we have enough production for everyone in the world to have a smartphone and internet access and electricity. We can make clothes for everyone, we can home everyone. We have enough healthcare for everyone.

        By an objective measure, we have abundance, we have enough. The world is just severely mismanaging our resources and the distribution of them. Because the economy doesn’t work for humans, instead humans work for the economy.

      • lath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Paragraphs are bodies of text. So the second paragraph in this scenario is the one where we are only a few breakthroughs away.

        • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Words are a series of letters.

          He agrees that we can cure all human disease? That’s silly.

  • dosse91@lemmy.trippy.pizza
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s just bait for investors. This is the kind of crap that gets people with money and zero understanding of computers to buy stocks.

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      We’ll have all that, and escalating poverty at scales that are difficult to imagine…

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    An issue with this tweet is that we already have the capacity to do a lot. We have the technology to provide healthy and diverse diets for the entire planet and fit a cities worth of farming inside a few city blocks (vertical hydroponics/aeroponics). We have the ability to create electricity in a dozen different renewable ways. We have the ability to desalinate water creating nearly infinite fresh water, we have enough square footage in the world to easily house everyone. We have stellar education systems that we could hand out to the entire world.

    Why don’t we do it? Well, all these things cost money. But the issue is, there also exists staggering amounts of money across the world. The panama papers revealed just a fraction of the wealth being hoarded by just a fraction of the wealthiest people in the world (and most implicated in the panema papers weren’t even too crazy, like soccer stars and business owners). There’s exists tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars of wealth created by the world just floating around in billionaires bank accounts and in the coffers of world powers.

    So it’s not an issue of abundance coming in the near future, we have it here on earth right now.

    • misspacfic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      exactly.

      many of the mundane atrocities being committed every day are deliberate choices in service of capital rather than people.

      you know, health insurance companies, etc.

  • Corngood@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I feel like AGI might be the furthest away of all those things.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, I am convinced we currently have no idea how an AGI could be made. It shouldn’t be a HW issue since it is possible to have a human brain worth of computing power in a small cluster. So it could be near impossible or we may be one great shower thought away, there is no way to know.

  • iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    8 months ago

    If we means the human race, it’s absolutely true. There’s just no mention of a timeline.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Every rich tech bro has convince themselves they are the savior of the world.