Not really, no. If you use a regex library it is very likely that 80% of that code is effectively dead code.
844 karma · joined December 31, 2019
Then don't release it. There is no license that can prevent your code from becoming training data even under the naive assumption that someone collecting training data would care about the license at all.
What makes you think that there is an "end game"?
Someone figured out how to make computers be able to create content that is costly to distinguish from human-made content. Someone else is using it to pump out AI slop in the hopes that it will make them a quick buck. The platform becomes unusable for anyone that values their own sanity. No "end game" to be found.
AI will be the worst thing that happened to society in a very long time.
Because it is "transformative" and therefore "fair" use.
Seems completely ridiculous when compared to the trouble I was in that one time I pirated a single book that I was unable to purchase.
So if good things happening more because AI made them cheap is an advantage of AI, then bad things happening more because AI made them cheap is a disasvantage of AI.
Those high resolution textures will just take space. You could obviously decrease the graphical fidelity but I'd guess that most players (me very much included) would rather play a very pretty 23GB Helldivers II than a 5GB ugly Helldivers II.
150GB was very annoying, ironically forcing me to install it to a HDD. 23GB isn't even worth thinking about for me.
No, we will get cheap _labor_, not necessarily cheap _products_.
> You weren't talking about inherent value when you wrote "Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless." which is what I replied to.
I was talking about value, not price.
> AIs controlled by governments would scare me indeed.
What is the difference?
> Are you joking?! How many cars do you think Altman can buy?!
Why would Elon need to sell more cars? And for what exactly? You have nothing Elon wants.
> Maybe I can't sell coding in the age of AI but I can sell my ability to understand, verify and control complex systems with code written by AIs.
Unless the super-intelligence is better than you here too. Why wouldn't it be?
> Adaptation, creativity and innovation is the name of the game.
It is the name of the game until super-intelligence comes along which will be better at all of this than you. That's exactly the scary thing about super-intelligence.
> My point was that Elon and rich people are interested in you as a customer, not for your labor.
This is the same thing. I can only be a customer if I can bring something to the table that Elon wants from me. That thing is money. I can only bring money to the table if someone that has money needs something I can provide. That thing is human labor. If super-intelligence removes the economic value of human labor, I can no longer earn money and consequently Elon will not be interested in me as a customer.
> See yourself as selling and buying products and services, not your labor, and the world will be full of opportunities.
Where exactly is the difference between me "selling a service" and me selling "labor"?
> "The rich" won't seem like a separate class from you, but regular people you can interact and profit from (while mutually benefiting).
I doesn't matter whether or not you see the rich as a seperate class. What matters is simply the following:
People who own a lot of stuff, don't sell their labor and/or buy a lot of labor will profit if labor becomes cheap. People who don't own a lot of stuff, sell their labor and don't buy a lot of labor face an existential threat if labor becomes cheap.
How do you know? A lot of the stuff I see online could very much be produced by LLMs without me ever knowing. And given the economics I suspect that some of it already is.
For me personally, this means that I read less on the internet and more pre-LLM books. It's a sad development nevertheless.
And then? I'll compensate the loss of thousands of dollars I don't earn anymore every month with the profits of a $100 investment in some ETF?
> If the labor is worthless, the great majority of people will be poor. Due to the law of supply & demand, property will be worthless since there will be very little demand for it.
Property has inherent value. A house I can live in. A farm can feed me. A golf course I can play golf on. These things have value even if nobody can buy them off me (because they don't have anything I want). Supply and demand determine only the _price_ not the _value_ of goods and services.
> Countries with or without resources often have poor citizens simply because being poor is the natural state of mankind. The only system that, historically, allowed the greatest number of people to exit poverty is capitalism. Here in Eastern Europe we got to witness an astonishing change of fortunes when we switched from communism to capitalism. The country and its resources didn't change, just the system and, correspondingly, the wealth of the population.
None of this has any connection to anything I've written. I'm talking about the concept of a resource curse. Countries rich in natural resources (oil, diamonds, ...) where the population is poor as dirt because the ruling class has no incentive to share any of the profits. The same can happen with AI if we don't do anything about it.
> How can they become richer when most people are dirt broke (because they were replaced by AIs) and thus can't buy their products and services?
Other rich people can buy their products and services. They don't need you to buy their products and services because you don't bring anything to the table because all you have is labor and labor isn't worth anything (or at least not enough to survive off it). Put differently: Why do you think rich people would like to buy your labor if using AI/robots is cheaper? What reason would they have to do that?
> Look at how even Elon's fortunes shrink when his company misses a sales forecast. He is only as rich as the number of customers he can find for his cars.
You're proving my point: Elon still lives in a world where labor is worth something. Because Elon lives in a world where labor is worth something it is in his interest that there are many people capable of providing that labor to him. This means it is in his interest that the general population has access to food and water, is well eduacated, ...
If Elon were to live in a world where labor is done by AI/robots there would be little reason for him to care. Yes, he couldn't sell his cars to the average person anymore, but he wouldn't want to anyway. He could still sell his cars to Altman in exchange for an LLM that strokes his ego or whatever rich people want.
The point is: Because rich and powerful people still have to pay for labor, their incentives are at least somewhat aligned with the incentives of the average person.
You still need to be rich to partake. Most business ventures will still require capital even in the age of super-intelligence. Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless.
> And when did "the rich" hoard anything for themselves only?! Usually I see them democratizing products and services so they are more accessible to everyone, not less.
There are plenty of examples of rich people hoarding their wealth. Countries with natural resources often have poor citizens because those citizens are not needed to extract that wealth. There is little reason why super-intelligence will not lead to a resource curse where the resource is human intelligence or even human labor.
> Computers in my pocket and on my wrist, TVs as big as a wall and thin like a book, electric cars, flights to anywhere I dream of traveling, investing with a few clicks on a website - all made possible to me by those evil and greedy rich in their race for riches. Thank you rich people!
Those rich people didn't share with you out of the goodness of their heart but because it was their best strategy to become even richer. But that's no longer the case when you can be replaced by super-intelligence.
Super-intelligence is a completely different can of worms. But I'm not optimistic about super-intelligence either. It seems super naive to me to assume that the spoils of super-intelligence will be shared with the people who no longer can bring anything to the table. You aren't worth anything to the super-rich unless you can do something for them which the super-intelligence can't do.
This assumes we even need more Terence Taos by the time these kids are old enough. AI has gone from being completely useless to solving challening math problems in less than 5 years. That trajectory doesn't give me much hope that education will matter at all in a few years.
AI helps people more that "write" (i.e. generate) low-quality code than people who write high-quality code. This means AI will lead to a larger percentage of new code being low-quality.
This will _never_ happen. Output will increase and quality will decrease.
AI will lead to abundance. For those that own stuff and no longer have to pay for other people to work for them.
Maybe currently if you enjoy social engineering an LLM more than writing stuff yourself. Feels a bit like saying "if you like running, you'll love cars!"
In the future when the whole process is automated you won't be needed to make the computer do stuff, so it won't matter whether you would like it. You'll have another job. Likely one that pays less and is harter on your body.
The declared goal of AI is to automated software engineering entirely. This is in no way comparable to building an assembler. So the question is mostly about whether or not this goal will be achieved.
Still, nobody is building these systems _for_ me. They're building them to replace me, because my living is too much for them to pay.
How are we building _for_ ourselves when we literally automate away our jobs? This is probably one of the _worst_ things someone could do to me.