A more complex natural language computer plugged into all social media can learn and adapt at a very high pace. If we also get it to hallucinate at at least 25fps then the whole thing can become murky. It could impersonate people on video calls and stuff along those lines. This tech looks like it will bring at least some changes in many aspects of our lives.
Why wouldn't the universe observe itself with no ability to change the initial conditions? Why do we have to have free will? It's still a win, vs no self awareness. I think.
What would be good approaches to also implement a personality layer, that can be more complex. Something like an effect box over the LLM that contains the info.
>“but I'd bet the farm that traditional social media has a finite lifespan, largely because inauthentic content is becoming so realistic and cheap to make that we're going to struggle to find who's real and who's a bot.”
A simple solution would be a physical hardware (human) authenticator, that observes you in visual + IR wavelengths + audio + LiDAR, and functions as a sort of "I am not a robot" check.
But then most users would have a ChatGPT template with: "consider the following thread link and compose a response for me that would make me dunk on everyone"
>We (humans) are getting boiled like the proverbial frog.
This is such a primitive way of thinking. It's more of an instinct, where you consider by default that your sole value is in your ability to generate/work.
Why the hell are we working for? Isn't it to improve our lives? Or should we improve them up to the point where we still have to work?
Why not use the tech itself to find better ways of organizing ourselves, without needing to work so much? UBI and things like that. Why be such limited? Why only develop tech up to the point where we would have to work less but not at all, and who decides where that point is?
There's so much wrong in this framework of thinking.
Yeah but with very simple tasks with the 2k tokens limit. Let alone the fact that it can't access the internet, or have more powerful extensions (say Wolfram).
I'm not conflating them, I was explaining why the word "alpha" is used as it is. Everybody knows its meaning.
Just because you can cite some historical examples it means nothing for what's happening around the world, in all cultures. Almost everywhere the most able human, environment permitting, will always use any advantage to get "the best things" or more than others. You can't cancel the concept itself, or try to shame those who do it. It doesn't work. It's dependent on the environment itself. As long as it permits it, it will happen. It's just game theory.
You can dance around this concept as much as you want, won't change what's happening practically.
What I was trying to tell you is that people mean "the boss" when they say alpha. They refer to how we are organized, the name alpha is meant to tell you which one of us, in any random social group, gets the most vs the others. Far various reasons.
Now, maybe alpha is not the correct word as it doesn't translate to us from wolves, but that still doesn't change how humans are organized in groups.
It's fair to mention the detail, doesn't change anything in human behavior. Humans will just move on to the next word that transmits the idea.
The word alpha is an approximation (in human terms) for certain privileges the group leader has, over the rest of the pack. You can name it or actively not name it either way. We use words to transmit ideas.
But sure, if you want to be more precise you can make the distinction more finely between humans and wolves behavior.
I think the "but it's a myth" thing resulted from the need to deny parts of human group behavior, that are not flattering for "lesser" individuals from said group, in the hopes that it invalidates their "lesser" position in that group.
We're trying to "censor" a non-flattering concept (for some) without addressing the actual issue, namely that they do have a leader of sorts, a more privileged position. Gets the best/most food if need be, etc.
You'd think, but most humans would rather have "someone" who's lying to them in a very pleasant manner. People don't like objective truth, they go to great lengths to avoid it.
Well if power groups block it or make it harder to use you're going to be left with the people who don't care about said rules. Keep something illegal long enough and you're going to have some people breaking the law. Simple to point the finger at them after the fact and go "see? only criminals are doing that"
Also the fact that they use it means that it's working, if anything.
I also can't see a simple way for people who can control the value of money to just give up that power.
Whatever happened to Bezos with all that Amazon drama? Is he now in the clear?
These discussions are so strange for people in third world countries. We're tired of all this fake outrage.
Could it be that the fact that the stages are "known" makes for a bleak perspective for whoever is going through them, without a sense of escape from it, and that makes it so that people prefer to attack this perspective in a sense of hoping for these steps to be actually wrong/not true?
This to me seems more of a "nah please tell me another story that doesn't make me feel so bad", which I can also understand to a degree, but that doesn't change the realness of those "steps".