trention

Ideally, I want the "army of robots" prevented from being created at all. But "robot slaves" is close to the second best option.

"Generating intelligent agents" is not a worthwhile (or safe, in any meaning of the latter) goal.

I don't want anybody being able to generate "intelligent agents" and will support all legal changes likely to slow this down or halt it.

>the benefits of the technology are so huge, and the downsides to the original code author so tiny

When this starts impacting emplyment opportunities for devs, get back to us with the "tiny" downsides.

I am not completely sure whether most of Ioannidis' own research is "false" - but all of his covid takes (in whatever form) are.

The first estimates from Ioannidis from the flawed (in every possible way) California paper were less than 0.1% IFR. He later revised them to 0.16% IFR, not sure if subsequent "revision" (=admission of being wrong) was done afterwards. Bear in mind, that was his IFR estimate for March-April 2020, when a lot of treatment was being done wrong (=intubate early) and even steroids were not supposed to be used for treatment outside RCTs.

Meanwhile, the CFR at Diamond Princess was at 2.6%, so refrain from the idiocy "1 in 8 IFR estimates" as only completely uninformed people will fall for them.

You are not the authority on what this (or any other) community is about. Fetishizing "progress" (whatever you think this means) is next level idiocy.

>If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie?

Yes.

>ML training needs to be fair use of copyrighted works, or most machine learning and AI projects will be impossible.

Good riddance then.

Eventually (not in the next 5 years but probably in the next 15) a system like this is going to lower the market salaries of developers (or make some of them outright unemployable). While using their own code as input to achieve that, without ever obtaining actual permission.

Seems like a pretty tangible harm to me.

>Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information.

The toddler is human. AIs are not humans.

It's a human right to learn. Non-humans don't (and shouldn't) have human rights.

>Humans aren't the end or the peak of evolution. We should be excited to watch this unfold.

Spoken like a true evolutionary loser.

>Do we smash the data centers now

Yes, the sooner, the better.

All of this either doesn't matter or barely matters.

>Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all.

I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".

It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.

Logical fallacies don't necessarily equal stupidity though sometimes they do.

A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bostrom.

>advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good.

They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.

Yes, as a general rule the government decides when it's ok to forbid you from doing something. If the US government wants, it can make it a crime to train/use these models. Banning the training part is pretty much game over for this industry.

I personally hope it happens as soon as possible. Intellectual property theft (without which those models don't exists) shouldn't be allowed.

But there is a claim that not distributing guns to other children or giving them detailed instructions about how to get guns is more responsible than the reverse.

Said "public research" didn't come with a requirement to release anything you build on top of it. This would pretty much be the research equivalent of compelled speech. Luckily, not happening.

A big part of entertainment's appeal is having an experience/frame of reference to share with other people. Personalized entertainment doesn't offer that.

I am also extremely skeptical of the ability/need so serve at individual level instead of niches (as today).

>where nobody really cares about the personal arc of the actor

Speak for yourself. Actors do have fans, and a lot of them. Their personal lives are subjects of interest for a reason.

So, no, not totally different at all.

You may want to familiarize yourself with this thought experiment and think how a slightly modified version applies to AIs and their output: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

As to whether I am an outlier: Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide watch Magnus Carlsen. How many have watched AlphaZero play chess when it came about and how many watch it when it ceased to be a novelty?

Because anything that an AI can produce, no matter how "intrinsically" good, becomes trivial, tedious and with zero value (both economic and general).

Why would I want to watch AI-generated content?

>Google has no special claim to be able to responsibly use these models

Well, they do have the "special claim" of inventing the model and not owing its release to anyone.

>We're about a week into text-to-video models

It's at the very least 5 years old: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00421

>I think you're on the money as to where that's headed.

Why would the "machines" "negotiate" (presumably with other machines) using human tools like conversation and presentations? There are multiple algorithms and mediums at which this can be done more efficiently (and is being done more efficiently).

We are at peak singularitarian delusion in these threads already. 'Humans do something, machines can (deus ex machina enters) do it better, machines will do it in the exact same way but instead of humans". Can't wait for the next AI winter, we desperately need it in light of these idiotic takes.

Reading comprehension lacking again. As I stated clearly in a comment above, I support banning employers from firing anyone over anything non-criminal they are doing during off-hours.

Also, I don't know exactly how far this is from the "opinion" of the so-called "labor movement" given that something closer to this than to anglosphere practice is the reality in most of continental Europe currently.

I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and attend logic 101 lest you continue inventing idiocy out of thin air.

It was absolutely obvious that the time period I was referencing was now, not 60 years ago. You have to be especially dense to not get that.

Also, you were not explicitly asked or referenced in my comment so your first point is irrelevant.

Yes, especially dense.

>unless we are forced to listen to & give them a platform

No, actually if you just don't explicitly engage in hiring practices on the basis of ideology.

https://unherd.com/thepost/political-discrimination-is-fuell...

>Several studies find that between 18 and 55% of academics would discriminate against a Right-wing applicant for a job or grant. I found that 40-45% of North American academics would not hire a Trump supporter and 1 in 3 in Britain would not hire a Leave supporter.

I of course don't expect the fact to lead to any form of reflection. After all, it's obvious you can't even grasp the fact that ideological diversity is beneficial and matters while ethnic diversity doesn't matter and is often harmful.