On the contrary, many of the most notable signatories walked away from large paychecks in order to raise the alarm. I'd suggest looking into the history of individuals like Bengio, Hinton, etc. There are individuals hyping the bubble like Altman and Zuckerberg, but they did NOT sign this, casting further doubt on your claim.
I think this is called the "relative privation" fallacy -- it is a false choice. The threat they're concerned about is human extinction or dystopian lock-in. Even if the probability is low, this is worth discussing.
But to develop superintelligence, probably all you need is some computer science researchers and some fairly ordinary computers. How can you monitor those, verify that parties involved are actually following the rules?
I do not think this statement is accurate. It requires many, very expensive, highly specialized computers that are completely spoken for. Monitoring can be done with hardware geolocation and verification of the user. We are probably 1-2 years away from this already, due to the fact that a) US wants to win the AI race vs China but b) the White House is filled with traitors long NVDA.
I think in the long run, they will be developed for kids, kids will grow up with them and they will be their best friends. No, this is not the universe I wanted to be in, but this is the future we're heading for.
There's certainly some mental illness around, especially on this topic. However it's also important to consider what if it isn't? AI companions are projected to be a huge market, and I'll be damned if a kid didn't develop a strong emotional bond to a companion it grows up with.
ChatGPT would have been science fiction 5 years ago. We are already living in science fiction times, friend.
On the contrary, many of the most notable signatories walked away from large paychecks in order to raise the alarm. I'd suggest looking into the history of individuals like Bengio, Hinton, etc. There are individuals hyping the bubble like Altman and Zuckerberg, but they did NOT sign this, casting further doubt on your claim.
I think this is called the "relative privation" fallacy -- it is a false choice. The threat they're concerned about is human extinction or dystopian lock-in. Even if the probability is low, this is worth discussing.
I do not think this statement is accurate. It requires many, very expensive, highly specialized computers that are completely spoken for. Monitoring can be done with hardware geolocation and verification of the user. We are probably 1-2 years away from this already, due to the fact that a) US wants to win the AI race vs China but b) the White House is filled with traitors long NVDA.
A quick google says 15-20%, which makes sense. Maybe the top 10% could comprise 50% of consumer spending, perhaps.
This comment is so cute.
Left. Left. Left right left.
They did expect this, and this is clickbait for the left.
Voiceover: It took less than a week.
This is a demonstration of the fallacy of relative privation.
Do you mind expanding on this.
Bro trying to turn this cesspool into ACX o7
It's becoming clear people view reality as a "choose your own adventure" game.
67 upvotes zero comments.
It also says I'm using i915 but I bought this laptop a year ago... so I suspect many Intel GPUs use that driver?
Edit: According to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.14-rc3/gpu/i915.html
Could you elaborate on why you think emotional attachment to an inanimate object is unhealthy? This seems as old as time.
I think in the long run, they will be developed for kids, kids will grow up with them and they will be their best friends. No, this is not the universe I wanted to be in, but this is the future we're heading for.
There's certainly some mental illness around, especially on this topic. However it's also important to consider what if it isn't? AI companions are projected to be a huge market, and I'll be damned if a kid didn't develop a strong emotional bond to a companion it grows up with.
I guess it'll only be a matter of time, friend.
The entshitification of relationships?