gitfan86

Just because something is difficult to measure does not mean it doesn't exist. People who have automated their jobs are unlikely to report that, since they like having a paycheck. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It isn't "Actual Intelligence" it is Artificial Intelligence. The whole point of this article is that we should separate the philosophical argument about "What is intelligence" from the work of automation with Neural Networks.

My preference is that we declare AGI to have been completed at AlphaZero. And now the people who want to work on replicating human intelligence can specifically say that is what they are working on, "Human Intelligence Replication" And people who want to use Neural Networks to automate parts of the economy and increase productivity can work on "Neural Network Functionality and Automation"

Sounds like you are looking for an Android in the style of BladeRunner. That would be cool, but I don't understand why you are against LLMs and FSD being labeled as AI. They are using neural networks to generate content and drive cars in ways that humans find valuable.

SubReddits for copywriting and graphic design and digital art are full of people talking about how the amount of gig work available has dropped off.

But that is irrelevant to the point of the article.

Maybe it takes 1 million hours of computing to train a model that can generate a logo, but an average human could have learned how to do that in just 50 hours of training with Photoshop.

The point of the article is that now for pennies users can generate logos in seconds that would have previously cost hundreds of dollars and days of back and forth with a designer.

This dynamic is going to flow through the economy

AGI has become a philosophical term in the way you are using it. Which is fine to discuss philosophy, but to the point of the article, AI enabled automation is beginning to have significant impact on the economy due to the new functionality.

Yes, I've been surprised by this as well. I expected that an older person who had done the same job for 10 years would be like this. But I'm seeing tech oriented people not want to use it.

He was right, MANY people put in way less than 40 hours of what he would have considered actual work. Scrum Masters, DEI Officers, Management Consultants are not real jobs for the most part. They are mostly in meetings saying vague buzzwords.

Background checks only confirm information given as part of an application. Employment and job title.

References however can be more about the quality of the work including "would you work with this person again?"

HR only does the background check part. The job of an HR department is to make the company look good. They do not want to start a conversation about how they hire bad employees or initiate a conversation where the former employer will tell their side of the story.

That is a new definition of intelligence that you are using. You are saying that even when something can outperform humans in the SAT or other tests of intelligence, it isn't actually intelligent due to it not being a carbon based lifeform

That is no different than saying beauty is only real if it is 100% natural. A woman who wears makeup and colors her hair is just an illusion of beauty.

It is a philosophical argument to say that a machine isn't truly intelligent because it isn't using the same type of neural network as a human

When a human makes a mistake it is a "cognitive 0-day" but when an LLM does something correctly it is "illusory"?

The trick is to make many LLMs work together in feedback loops. Some small some big.

That will get us to what was previously known as AGI. The definition of AGI will change, but we will have systems that put perform humans in most ways.

Over the past year there have been advances in making models smaller while keeping performance high.

So if that continues then he is wrong unless he is defining LLMs in a strict way that does not include new improvement in the future

Yes, that was my point in my original comment. HN would be better if we avoided clickbait and low quality "journalism"

What about repeating parts of a Reuters article proves that business Insider isn't low quality and did that they did fact check this guy themselves?

Yes, they could have referenced someone who did fact the fact checking.

But even worse is that they didn't ask him for the claim report from the insurance company.

Business Insider is well known for low quality posts. Just looking at the headline you know they chose to run a story without fact checking anything this guy said.

It was literally bought with money from a gas engine and gas trucking company.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/style/jay-penske.html

Rolling Stone used to be somewhat anti establishment, but now they are producing content for the fossil fuel industry.

I'm not saying that had a meeting and asked how can we accelerate climate change. But that seems like their goal.

It is very unfortunate for people like you understood that crypto was a scam and then assumed that the next thing that all the same people pivoted to was also a scam.

And ability doesn't fit in the spreadsheet they use to calculate their target profitability.

They are going to cut expenses by 40% and increase costs of their products by 20%.

And this is why 99% of AI safety is a waste of time.

Skynet and paperclips are clearly not the risk. The risk is a person deciding that they need to use their power to do what they want and that person having access to powerful AI. What if Adam had a backdoor to GPT-5. He could have got sam arrested by generating proof that he was using company funds on prostitutes and drugs?

It isn't peer pressure, it is just reality. 60 people are not going to be able to run OpenAI especially since those 60 people will have not had a 2 week knowledge transfer window with the missing 700 people.

The worst part of an agent is that they will not show you a house that is for sale by owner. They are actively limiting your options and you are paying them for that service

The Tesla update is slow probably for this reason. It is probably verifying that it can rollback at any point of failure.

How is the timeshare company ever going to get money once the estate is closed?

The person who singed the agreement is dead and there is no estate to sue.

If someone is known to be a high pressure sales person that takes advantage of people I wouldn't expect them to actually follow through on the gift that was offered for staying

Anyone can make a claim against an estate. But there is a deadline usually 6 months to a year after the death where the estate can be closed. Even when someone makes a claim the executor of the will can tell a judge that they don't think the claim is valid. So it comes down to the timeshare company needing to know about the death and filing a claim quickly enough and a judge accepting the claim as valid.

Short term this isn't a big deal for current customers. Landlords would prefer to get the revenue you are supplying rather than lock you out of your office. You would be under no obligation to pay your wework membership fee if they locked you out.

Your point is very relevant to future customers though. If you are in the market for short term office space why would you chose the one that might shutdown in 3 months.