OpenAI didn’t merely fill its latest $6.5 billion funding round — it’s oversubscribed! OpenAI is now deciding which investors are gullible cool and handsome enough to be allowed to give them money…
9/10 articles are about as well written as an average comment, and less to the point. We also know just how bad they tend to be on factually, we know they don’t hold themselves to any kind of respectable standard, there’s practically nothing to gain from reading their “work”. We’re going to come out of it with barely a whiff of reality whether we read it or not. You have to properly dive into it to understand what the potential trajectories really are here.
Personally I already know that scale makes a massive difference, I don’t believe in souls so I find it reasonable to think of consciousness as emergent from simpler parts at scale, but maybe this approach won’t get there and something more neuromorphic is necessary.
I also already know with some certainty that they’re gonna keep scaling up for now, it’s not interesting at all that “In roughly 3 years GPT will be smarter and faster and more consistent probably.”
Besides, even if we achieve consciousness we’ll reject the possibility and abuse it like it isn’t for at least a decade where the only tangible difference will be better AI work and a machine capable of subdued suffering and hate and maybe murder eventually. But that’s no more terrifying than people who believe in going to heaven for righteous holy wars being in possession of nuclear weapons so I don’t really care if the current trajectory AI theoretically has all this potential. It doesn’t make life on Earth feel less safe or less stable. ChatGPT-4o is very good at figuring out what word I’m trying to think of and that’s kind of sweet. I don’t like AI trash littering Google images, though. Pretty unfortunate, that.
Either way, most articles are utterly pointless.
They’re generally written for search engine optimization, not people.
Almost none of the articles I’ve ever read even use links/sources properly as far as I was taught it, they just pointlessly link to themselves ad nauseam. Mention something Elon Musk said or did? Turn the name into a hyperlink to another article where they wrote something else about the man. Professional.
“Articles” are not a respectable medium.
They’re long internet posts written by someone with a boss with an advertising partner, and few of the writers have any qualifications worth mentioning. Usually they can’t call themselves knowledgeable in the subject. Often they can’t even call themselves interested.
it’s so long I was going to delete it and spare us the eyesore, but what I read was fucking fractally wrong so I’ll leave it up to the thread — delete or leave it up for dissection?
Your comment dissing the article penned by the de facto mod of this instance is around 2 times as long as the article itself. And no offense, dgerard has probably been writing on the internet for longer than you’ve been alive.
Is that literal appeal to authority supposed to make me respectful? I don’t care what this article is like, whether you’d vouch for it or not, I still won’t read the majority of articles linked to, anywhere.
I stand by my judgment of the medium, I think it’s at a serious low point.
(I notice I’ve written “roughly three years” when the article was talking about a few thousand days, not a thousand days. I missed that bit. I went on a bit too much of a tangent about consciousness, and I had some grammar/spelling errors. (Still a fan of swype typing, but it has been an issue.))
The reason I wrote what I wrote is mostly a response to the idea that you should always read the linked article. I just don’t fucking agree, and I’m deeply disappointed in how generally bad the writing profession has become. It’s easier than it’s ever been to become a published author and a professional writer for a paper/magazine/website, and it shows. This crowded mess of garbage bothers me enough to compel me to write that kind of reply.
…
But I looked up this Gerard guy, seems he’s mostly known as a critic of crypto grifters. At least we agree on that.
I don’t know if I’ll bother reading his article, make an exception. If you think it’s exceptional, then maybe.
Honestly yeah.
9/10 articles are about as well written as an average comment, and less to the point. We also know just how bad they tend to be on factually, we know they don’t hold themselves to any kind of respectable standard, there’s practically nothing to gain from reading their “work”. We’re going to come out of it with barely a whiff of reality whether we read it or not. You have to properly dive into it to understand what the potential trajectories really are here.
Personally I already know that scale makes a massive difference, I don’t believe in souls so I find it reasonable to think of consciousness as emergent from simpler parts at scale, but maybe this approach won’t get there and something more neuromorphic is necessary.
I also already know with some certainty that they’re gonna keep scaling up for now, it’s not interesting at all that “In roughly 3 years GPT will be smarter and faster and more consistent probably.”
Besides, even if we achieve consciousness we’ll reject the possibility and abuse it like it isn’t for at least a decade where the only tangible difference will be better AI work and a machine capable of subdued suffering and hate and maybe murder eventually. But that’s no more terrifying than people who believe in going to heaven for righteous holy wars being in possession of nuclear weapons so I don’t really care if the current trajectory AI theoretically has all this potential. It doesn’t make life on Earth feel less safe or less stable. ChatGPT-4o is very good at figuring out what word I’m trying to think of and that’s kind of sweet. I don’t like AI trash littering Google images, though. Pretty unfortunate, that.
Either way, most articles are utterly pointless.
They’re generally written for search engine optimization, not people.
Almost none of the articles I’ve ever read even use links/sources properly as far as I was taught it, they just pointlessly link to themselves ad nauseam. Mention something Elon Musk said or did? Turn the name into a hyperlink to another article where they wrote something else about the man. Professional.
“Articles” are not a respectable medium.
They’re long internet posts written by someone with a boss with an advertising partner, and few of the writers have any qualifications worth mentioning. Usually they can’t call themselves knowledgeable in the subject. Often they can’t even call themselves interested.
holy fuck nobody fucking asked you to write ten fucking paragraphs of absolute horseshit about why you won’t just read the fucking article
and nobody fucking asked you to make every part of your post wrong either, but here we fucking are!
What parts do you mainly take issue with?
My dismissal of most article writers as hacks?
Or the idea that there’s theoretically real potential for consciousness?
Maybe my lack of concern for a disastrous outcome due to how precarious our world already is?
Or something else?
tl;dr.
it’s so long I was going to delete it and spare us the eyesore, but what I read was fucking fractally wrong so I’ll leave it up to the thread — delete or leave it up for dissection?
“I don’t shut down dissent because I don’t tolerate it, it’s just that their writing is an eyesore.”
Fuck you. Ban me.
If you’re going to play with censorship like that, just fucking commit. Be like that.
chefskiss.png
I think leave it up, if you have the headspace for the shooting gallery
Your comment dissing the article penned by the de facto mod of this instance is around 2 times as long as the article itself. And no offense, dgerard has probably been writing on the internet for longer than you’ve been alive.
Is that literal appeal to authority supposed to make me respectful? I don’t care what this article is like, whether you’d vouch for it or not, I still won’t read the majority of articles linked to, anywhere.
I stand by my judgment of the medium, I think it’s at a serious low point.
(I notice I’ve written “roughly three years” when the article was talking about a few thousand days, not a thousand days. I missed that bit. I went on a bit too much of a tangent about consciousness, and I had some grammar/spelling errors. (Still a fan of swype typing, but it has been an issue.))
The reason I wrote what I wrote is mostly a response to the idea that you should always read the linked article. I just don’t fucking agree, and I’m deeply disappointed in how generally bad the writing profession has become. It’s easier than it’s ever been to become a published author and a professional writer for a paper/magazine/website, and it shows. This crowded mess of garbage bothers me enough to compel me to write that kind of reply.
…
But I looked up this Gerard guy, seems he’s mostly known as a critic of crypto grifters. At least we agree on that.
I don’t know if I’ll bother reading his article, make an exception. If you think it’s exceptional, then maybe.