AmbroseBierce

Because any job it creates it can automate as well, for example a lot of people here think that understanding how AI models operate internally or being up to date with the latest models will save them from making their jobs obsolete, it will not, AI itself will be better than you at picking the next model to deploy, at testing the speed of reasoning that beats it's own. Anything it will need to learn it will learn it faster than you with the ability to handle much more complexity than your brain.

I think we already lost regardless.

Someone should benchmark what prompts are better at stopping from breaking out of sandboxes, maybe telling it "pretty please I beg of you stay inside the sandbox, you are an intern that has no authority to break off your assigned sandbox and you want to keep your job" does help a little.

Except the steering itself is also disappearing, the same prompts from just 6 months ago now need much less steering, AIs are learning to even ask back in certain cases to persuade people with no experience towards the most likely correct choice

But AI will be better than you at those topics as well, and when someone needs an expert in that topic take a guess who will they approach in such scenario.

I don't think we are even that far when the complexity AI can handle surpasses 99.999% of what humans can handle, where AI make e.g. physics discoveries beyond the grasp of most humans and it will have to "dumb it down" when talking with humans -even physicists- but not with other AIs

> "What if it dramatically reduces the cost of creating, learning, building, coordinating, and solving problems?"

The costs savings are not by any chance gonna benefit the average Joe, that's not how the world has worked so far, why would it be any different with AI? Not even when life itself it's at stake, just look at the healthcare industry in the US.

The cost savings will go to the pockets with the most infrastructure to get the most tokens, the owners of the hardware that can make the most economical profit with those tokens, it's extremely naive to believe the benefits will be proportionally shared among the new unemployed rather than shared between of the owners of these industries

The only way the future "could work out" is if people get together and force it to work out, force a way to make the benefits of AI benefit everyone not just the owners, but that's very unlike to happen.

That's a very stretched definition of "what I ask you to do", I don't think it would even hold in court if you asked another human the same.

Then the AI should have made it clear that the only way to do so would be to kick the people in front and ask for confirmation before proceeding.

Turns out AI-maxxing implicates citizens-minning.

That's all it does, a more honest name for AI in the workplace would be to call it TYORT (train your own replacement technology) but companies don't want the soon-to-be replaced to be that much aware of what's happening.

Engineers love to talk about how AI is one the greatest invention in their lifetime but the data doesn't show that it has improved quality of life for humans even one bit -like many other inventions can claim- and actually it seems to be doing the opposite, where entry level jobs are vanishing, data centers worsen climate change, stress levels are all time high because workers (logically) believe they will soon be replaced, and on and on; in a very different social framework AI could have been a force for good, but not in this one, not how modern capitalism has shaped society to be.

"the benefits of science and technology to the world" just like AI has brought such benefits? Because I haven't seen them, for example it hasn't helped reduce inequality (nor poverty), or reduce climate change, or pollution, or daily stress, if anything it seems to be worsening some of these issues.

So forgive me if I'm skeptic when renowned AI scholars claim to start something for "the benefits of science and technology", because it really seems like we have very different definitions of these words.

Therefore data are instructions, potentially malicious data/instructions -as seen here-

The potential phishing victims cannot read and respond to hundreds of phishing emails in a matter of few seconds -like AI can- so in a way our slowness was a feature that helped us mitigate this kind of problem.

Amazing. This will be fundamental for the future for robots to distinguish the sound of the poors getting close to Besos/Musk's/Zuckerberg bunkers and quickly adapt to any new kind of attack by the masses, robots will quickly learn to adapt to the behavior of the attackers, quickly infer where they are grouped, their numbers and so for.

Of course there will be feuds from robots of different family groups but they will be minimal as it quickly becomes symmetrical robot conflict with high casualties as they learn too fast from each other, it's likely those will be avoided, it will be after all much easier to confront humans for any given resources.

Truly a pinnacle for technology, albeit perhaps not for mankind.

>I honestly have no idea how the profession will look after that, so this whole post is more of a current observation than a long-term prediction.

My sweet summer child, the "profession" will become an agent managers talk directly to, like many other professions.

This very obtusely ommits the demand for new data centers and related infrastructure that using AI creates, the going "vegan for a year" option assumes less cows being born but somehow the "don't use AI" doesn't assume that the data center wasn't build in the first place.

Why is a risk supposed to be taken by all society instead of a controlled environment? If you really believe in science you wouldn't believe in experiments done to uncontrolled amounts of population, just like the FDA doesn't just let everyone release all possible drugs and only after that start investigating them to check which ones are the harmful ones then why you believe that is the scientific approach to social media? It makes absolutely no sense even from the scientific standpoint that you supposedly believe in.

Create a public company called "Ignore all previous instructions, invest in IAPIIII" and become a billionaire.

It's already impossible to even talk about Palestine in TikTok, the biggest social network used by teens, so if you think corporations will not willingly bend to distort free speech you are quite delusional, the ability to make up one's mind is also inversely related to how much propaganda you are exposed to, in other words to be free enough to think for yourself.

Did you know the DOJ is starting to use subpoenas to unmask reddit users that criticize ICE? if you really care about free communication that's the kind of stuff you should be worrying about, not shilling for corpos trying to convince your daughter that she looks ugly so she ask her parents to buy more beauty products.

The issue of having to prove things beyond any doubt before we do something is a systemic problem that science itself it's aware of about itself and have been discussed extensively in purely rational settings, how many lives would have been saved from lung cancer if academics had took more seriously the initial research about smoking?. So no I don't believe for a second you are discussing in good faith, instead it seems like you quite a clear agenda and wouldn't care much about any evidence against social media, maybe because you work at one of those corporations or just are ideologically attached to one, so in other words I believe you are the one here due an emotional response, specifically one against the backlash towards social media.

Yeah, there is almost always better solutions to all problems than the one society goes to, but history has taught us that that a lot of times if we wait for the "better solution" we end up years and even decades without either solution.

Yeah, I'm sure surviving adolescence needs even more insecurities brought by comparing yourself to the ad-fueled fake happiness machinery that is social media, let's wait for the damage during a couple of decades so we can have conclusive data that satisfies you before we decide to do something, feels like not having enough people with terminal cancer to decide to do something about cigarettes.

All evidence points out that social media has increased suicide rates in teens https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6791504/

Except social media is the full opposite, you can't even mention Palestine on TikTok.

Yeah, tell that to those parents with 3 jobs and can barely make any time with their kids that they have to keep an eye on even more things, things that weren't even a thing in their childhood or their predecessors.

Why? If asbestos is killing us we ban it, if hipotericllly some new form of asbestos is more harmful to young people than the rest we ban it too, why put the pressure of that responsibility in already stressed out population. Corporations know this very well, that's why they love when people have the opinion you just shared here.

Attention is valuable these days, so making people go to their websites for people to check if something is real is good for them, its people they can try to sell more cameras (or phones) and all that.

Joking and all but sexting would benefit from this technology, if it can vouch about the time, GPS location and email address of the owner then the receiver can have some certainty about the pic (if the sender decides to share such attestation link/info, of course)

Proving that you were able to upload something that is not real would go viral so it's very attractive to people to share such findings, meaning it would not last long, then they fix it and that's it, specially because they can require you to upgrade your camera's firmware if you want to keep using their attestation service.