jimmyjazz14

sure but that is still less than the total users of electricity.

Yes but for most people electricity is an absolute necessity, the average person could easily live without AI should it disappear from their lives.

I never said I wouldn't miss it or that is is useless, just that in comparison to other services I pay for (or the company I work for pays for) I could easily live without it. I have to ask though, are these lines of code making you money? If so will you continue to need to produce this amount of code over the next 2 to 5 years to continue to profit from your work? I also would point out this argument could be applied to choosing some open source framework over another because of the number of lines of code it contains which doesn't make sense.

I can't think of any use case for AI that is a necessity for myself (or people I know), even if coding agents (which I use every day) disappeared tomorrow it would only be a minor inconvenience that I had to write my own code again. Now lets contrast that with electricity or internet, if either of those went offline I would be on a call trying to get them restored asap, now as far as I know neither of those industries bring in $6T in revenue.

> We must move past vague discussions of “AI” and instead isolate the specific types of systems that are creating problems.

This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.

yeah that part seems weird, I mean if its a public api thats literally the use case it was designed for.

I'm really hoping AI does not become the next political culture war thing, but I'm afraid it probably already is moving in that direction; though it does at least seem that the dividing lines won't be red vs blue this time.

I really hope the bar associations continues to hold lawyers to high standards but I have feeling they may not be ready to handle fallout of AI slop-law.

Can someone who has insight explain why all these "leaders" are making these bold proclamations of doom all the sudden, whats the endgame here?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I have tried coming back to the game multiple times and every time I just feel bored and underwhelmed by the whole experience.

I feel like if these people actually bought their sci-fi views about AI's future, creating a more powerful AI to wins the arms race would not be their solution.

Really puts the marvels of modern life into perspective, most people did not live long or happy lives for much of human history.

There is part of me who would love to see the style of internet created by companies like Meta regulated out of existence but the logical part of my mind recognizes this could lead to things like age verification laws, online surveillance and other much worse government controls over the internet.

The difference is asbestos clearly and directly caused harm, the social media addiction stuff stand on pretty dubious science to say the least.

The system isn't tricking anyone, if an individual is not aware of how social media algorithms work that is due to willful ignorance (in the case of children that falls on the parents willful ignorance).

I do personally believe banning the algorithms begins to fall into the realm of free speech regulation. I can hate the algorithm crap without thinking the government should regulate the internet.

Agreed, this is just setting the stage for requiring age verification (and surveillance) under the pretense of "saving the children".

Why not just ban all non government approved speech, less we hear something that might hurt our feelings or make us engage in wrongthink.

Learning how to do "boring" things is probably one of the more important skill a child can learn, most things worth doing tend to be kinda boring at least at some point.

Wouldn't a better title be "don't give out information that you wouldn't want used by bad actors"? Seems less about technology and more about privacy.

Its cute how people who don't live here have the worst ideas for how we should run our country, like we don't see what they are trying to do.

Glad to see a shout-out for Reaper in the first comments, its my favorite DAW and I've used them all.

If that is the case market forces would likely favor hand written code and all the slop will be forgotten (unless the slop works fine and is stable).

It still blows my mind that anyone would volunteer to don these smart glasses, it's almost like some alien mindset to me.

The definition of intelligence hasn't changed since the 1980's, most would say that true intelligence requires intentionality which is not something LLMs are capable of, defining intelligence can turn into a fairly deep philosophical debate (which I have no interest in having).

again, all the things you listed are just humans acting like humans, not aliens. Thinking these things are not things that fall within you own human nature is rather arrogant don't you think.

My point is that wild imaginations about the current state of LLMs is the problem, we wouldn't even consider connecting a random number generator or a statistical model to a weapons system but if we start thinking of it as an intelligence some actually would be tempted to do so.

How they were created doesn't change what they are, or how humans choose to use them.

That is a choice a human made. Imagine if someone proposed sending the outputs of a random number generator to a space laser and had it fire at will, would we blame the number generator for the destruction it causes? You may say that LLMs are not random number generators, and I would somewhat agree, but at least in their current state and level of understanding we have about how they derive their output they might as well be.

uhg this entire way of treating AI like a magical alien invasion is the problem, it just a statistical model, text-in, text-out (and it humans that feed the input and act on the output). Its not some alien invasion that can't be stopped, its just another technology that we as humans need to figure out how we want to use. Seriously people need to stop trying to anthropomorphize AI, because doing so is one of the biggest hurdles to practical/common-sense AI adoption IMO.

Altman really needs some better coaching on how to sound like a real human, he's not pulling it off here. Who witnesses someone firebombing their home (which is terrible btw), thinks for a second about their family then writes a diatribe full of AI marketing bs. He doesn't even attempt to make it sound personal. He could have incorporated his feelings about his child growing up in an AI dominated world or something to that effect, even as trite as that sounds, it would ring more believably human than what was written here.