kakapo5672

As a first approximation, why not? Behavior is generally all we have in front of us, plus any other assorted social signals. Internal mental states are invisible, as is the personal history of the individual. We might note a man beating a kitten on the sidewalk, and believe this behavior sufficient grounds to reduce this person to the category "dick", even if we remained unaware of his high intelligence, his doctoral paper on gender-inequality, and the fact his mother hates him.

It's a true state-change, which makes the argument pretty compelling IMO.

Clearly, some white-collar jobs will be replaced. Hard to argue against that, given it's already beginning to happen. So the question becomes what is the eventual rate of conversion and what is the subsequent economic impact over time? I don't think anyone has a credible handle on that, except to note that it won't be zero.

It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.

I've pointed out that these vehicles are quickly become more prevalent, here and (especially) in China. To which the counter is that there plenty of Indonesians to go around.

But I can tell you that statistics and parametrized functions have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're way out of your depth my friend.

I also don't get all the hand-wringing. AI is an amazing tool. Use it and be happy.

Even less do I get all the cope about it not being effective, or even useless at some level. When I read posts such as that, it feels like a different planet. Just not my experience at all.

Invariably they've never used AI, or at most very rarely. (If they used AI beyond that, this would be admission that it was useful at some level).

Therefore it's reasonable to assume that you are in that boat. Now that might not be true in your case, who knows, but it's definitely true on average.

I spent about a minute composing the prompt for this task, and then went for a cup of coffee. When I got back the task was done. I spot-checked the summaries and they were excellent.

I thought this was amazing and magical at the time. Am I wrong? Or is it simply the AI making me think this result was amazing and magical?

If you truly believe AI is simply going to collapse and disappear, you are deep in some serious cope and are going to be unpleasantly surprised.

1) AI is basically useless, a mere semi-random word generator. 2) And it is so powerful that it is going to hurt (or even destroy) humanity.

This is this is called "having your cake, and letting it eat you too".

We're embarking on a ginormous planetary experiment here.

Investment in fusion is huge and rising. ITER's total cost alone will be around $20b. And then there's Commonwealth Fusion, Helion, TAE and about a dozen others. Tens of billions are going into those efforts too.

But it seems to me that the acid test, as always, is successful prediction. If one day a digital model makes a prediction that is experimentally demonstrated, and not accounted for via other models, then there might be more support for this approach.

So when I read articles like this, I too am fascinated by the motivations and psychology of the author. What is going on there? The closest analogue I can think of is Climate Change denialism.

Rather, these models are literally grown during the training phase. And all the intelligence emerges from that growth. That's what makes them a black box and extremely difficult to penetrate. No one can say exactly how they work inside for a given problem.

Data General and Unisys did not create PCs - small disrupters did that. These startups were happy to sell eggs.

Humans generally have a very high opinion of themselves and their supposedly unique creative skills. They are not eager to have this illusion punctured.