I think the most instructive example of this is Stephen Elop. He had ONE (1) successful business venture in the 90's and has done a horrible, laughably destructive job at everything he has ever touched since, and is still a CEO.
Yes, those animals are called "humans". All you have done is respond to an explanation of your lack of understanding of intelligence with arguments demonstrating a lack of understanding of evolution ...
Well yes, if it is a superintelligence, it will be able to do those things. That's what superintelligence basically is: The ability to achieve complex goals.
If you want the details of ways it can do it I recommend reading some of the reports about the HuggingFace breach that happened in July (Read more than one).
In my opinion, no; but they are now getting in bed (Metaphorically) with people who see their software as potential means to "beat China" or "beat Iran" and together they are weaving a very tangled Pandora's box of worms
If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction and this poses a risk of potential loss to shareholders then they must disclose it.
I, on the other hand, don't want to be a permanent serf to whoever manages to merge their brain with ASI first and think it's high time we begin decommissioning datacenters through direct action.
I have started to feel the sense lately, that first with the HF breach and now this plagiarism scandal, it is the straw that has broken the camel's back (so to speak). We have turned the corner and clearly entered the endgame - everything is going to unravel astonishingly quickly.
If you believe that the probability of destruction is currently 10%, but the probability of destruction if you decide to quit Anthropic becomes (say) 13%, then the rational move (Assuming you are opposed to destruction) is not to quit.
I never made any predictions of a cooperative (Civil or otherwise) mass migration of civilization - just that a nonzero number of people would move from areas that were becoming uninhabitable to areas that were becoming habitable. Did you reply to the right comment?
Global warming is happening at a slow enough pace that there is plenty of time for people to move to the poles/into caves/beneath the ocean/whatever. Nuclear war would be much more destructive in a much shorter range of time but you will have pockets.
Those are things that pose potential harm to great fractions of humanity (multiple billions of people) but none of them poses any threat to the actual extinction of all humanity.
On the flipside imagine if Europe could be a genuinely competitive continent again. I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime - but if it could, the benefits to the consumer would be enormous.
Being down for a few hours 2-3 times a month is obviously garbage from a reliability standpoint, but I think they will keep it going at just the level necessary to barely hold on to these customers.
I think that, exactly how 95% of the people that left Twitter eventually returned, we will see a similar outflux of people from Github and the vast majority of them will quietly be back in a few months.
The reality of the current situation is that we have dozens of families of different model; each of which is differentiated further into various revision numbers and power levels, and depending on which one you use and what the nature of the tasks is, you very much need a different usage style that can only be discerned after multiple (Sometimes very many) sessions of using that individual model for that category of task. It is not one size fits all, and trying to pretend that it is will lead to failure.
For the robot to function without teleoperation, sota is for it to be using a model that runs on chips about 5-10x the cost of what is being discussed here. How do you propose for that without transmission of data out of your house ?