Submitted by Buck-Nasty t3_11xv3f7 in singularity
Comments
SgathTriallair t1_jd68cae wrote
He's doing a good job of redistributing his own assets so this isn't the gotcha you imagine it to be.
[deleted] t1_jd6bo1d wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jd6jign wrote
How dare he want to save children's lives. Every single philanthropic organization has funds that make money. If they didn't invest and grow a fund, they would quickly die, and the goal they were set up for would suffer.
Any of these countries could kick him out, just like they could kick out any business or other NGO that was trying to operate in the country.
[deleted] t1_jd6t4z5 wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jd7zcqu wrote
The ideal situation is that a democratically rejected and accountable government should be doing this work. They aren't though so someone needs to step into the breach.
The misalignment is of course undesirable but to act as if it's some evil plot is ridiculous. His work on ending malaria will do more to help humanity than we can possibly imagine. Tackling the single biggest cause of human death is more than enough to justify his philanthropy.
[deleted] t1_jd85gn8 wrote
[deleted]
Hotchillipeppa t1_jd96qcu wrote
It’s funny, for a sub who generally prides itself on critical thinking, a lot of people upvote the comment defending bill gates, believing his charity justifies the insane wealth he has.
HumanSeeing t1_jd6xac4 wrote
This reminds me some talk about how if you are a billionaire who does something to help humanity, they get tons of shit for not doing enough (and i agree) but when you are a billionaire and you just hoard your wealth and do nothing, no one complains about you. To be clear i think it is absurd that we are still living in a system where it is possible for billionaires to exist.. i mean i understand how we got here. History and human nature and corruption and greed etc. But it is wild how successful the brainwashing of people is to just take the world today and everything in it as normal.
[deleted] t1_jd87a7h wrote
[deleted]
SnipingNinja t1_jd75hly wrote
I think people who complain about billionaires "doing good" are still complaining about it but it just doesn't come up as much. Also, if a billionaire is genuinely being good, they don't need to care what a minority thinks they can keep doing good and the results will speak for themselves.
After all, we know the billionaires not doing good will keep not doing it and will have the results speak for themselves anyway.
RetroRocket80 t1_jd9og5r wrote
Human Nature. It's not our fault really, this is millions of years of natural selection in a competitive world with limited resources and literal survival on the line, and you piss all over Bill and Jeff and Elon for doing exactly what Nature intended all along and not being able to rise beyond the sum of their parts.
That's what AGI will allow us to do, create it to be better than ourselves, to usher in the world we all want, but can't bring ourselves to create on our own.
A literal Deus Ex Machina.
It's human nature that has brought us to this point. Perhaps we are the first.
boxen t1_jd6mmja wrote
Everyone that owns stock (which is every wealthy person) is always "richer than they've ever been before." That's just how stock works.
If you have 100 billion dollars to give away, giving it away in a lump sum and just absolving yourself of responsibility for how it gets spent is a terrible idea. The whole point of his philanthropic organization is to ensure that the money gets spent as wisely as possible.
Your view of him is wildly inaccurate. How would use a 100 billion dollars to better the world? It's not a simple question to answer.
And you mentioned "unelected." Are you suggesting he should give it to the government and let them handle it? They already have Trillions of dollars, and what are they doing with it? Health care? Education? Or war?
[deleted] t1_jd6qlig wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jd8003g wrote
Getting rich of stocks isn't hoarding anything. That wealth doesn't actually exist, is all based on how much they could theoretically make on the open market if they sold their stocks. Of course if he did sell those socks they would lose value.
The government could choose to prioritize taking care of it's citizens. Those of us in democracies could view for politicians who support these priorities (and I do). Unfortunately we, as a country, don't view for these politicians. The existence of philanthropists isn't causing the government to do anything.
[deleted] t1_jd883ch wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jd8g8kd wrote
I agree that we need to fix there economic system and the existence of billionaires proves that we are broken.
I'm not, however, going to get mad at the ones who are trying to make the world better when there are so many trying to make the world worse.
The goal is to reduce human suffering and create a more equitable world. ANYTHING which furthers that goal is good. So Bill Gates foundation is good and should be recognized as such. Having no need for philanthropists would be better but that isn't the choice we are offered right now.
[deleted] t1_jd8l4u3 wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jd9plpg wrote
What is the solution then? Do we let the poor starve hoping it will active everyone else's empathy centers in just the right way? Do we start a violent revolution that ends with an oppressive dictatorship that makes everyone's life worse? I get that saying "we've got philanthropy so our work here is done" isn't good but why would we try to stop them from helping? If I'm dying of cancer I'd really like medicine to help me, but I'm not going to turn down the person who is patching up my gunshot wound even if it is delaying me getting my cancer meds.
[deleted] t1_jda0xgf wrote
[deleted]
SgathTriallair t1_jda3by4 wrote
I agree with all of these. My only complaint was that I want to do whatever harm reduction we can while we work towards implementing these ideas.
[deleted] t1_jdanowg wrote
[deleted]
Hotchillipeppa t1_jd97527 wrote
This looks like an ai wrote this not gonna lie,either way I agree
visarga t1_jd75ooz wrote
But your supposition is not falsifiable, right? Under what circumstances would you believe a billionaire philanthropist is sincere?
[deleted] t1_jd8938u wrote
[deleted]
RadRandy2 t1_jd968tx wrote
Some reddit nerd is trying to convince you this billionaire is but a humble man of the people; trying his best to make sure life is fair and just. He's doing a great job at growing more wealth and still somehow giving it away so charitably.
Classic.
smallmouthbackus t1_jd6do4s wrote
Yup
ztrz55 t1_jd6gi9z wrote
He's definitely good at telling us about it.
mudman13 t1_jd7cw8c wrote
You mean dodging tax by hiding it in philanthropy?
bobbib14 t1_jd69i1r wrote
Its not a gotcha for Bill per se. its all of them. Sure he can be the best of them, thats fine
Ishynethetruth t1_jd6czn8 wrote
Lmao I think that’s what he really wants. He understand there is no point of being rich when everyone around you is dying. Earth , middle class ect…….
KamikazeHamster t1_jd7ie7u wrote
Yea. Let’s give all 8 billion people an equal split of his 113 billion dollars. Now everyone has 14 dollars. We did it Reddit!
IronPheasant t1_jd7knx3 wrote
The benefit to humanity wouldn't be the 14 dollars. It would be the elimination of Bill Gates as one of our man-gods.
Of course another vampire king would be promoted to take his place and nothing would change. Except for the face telling us everything's swell and going to continue to be so.
Which in itself is a plus since the new guy probably wasn't as "close friends" with Epstein as Gates was. (And for Gates-stans, I'd like you to respond with your fanfiction for why his wife decided to divorce him soon after all that.)
... and only plebs really think in terms of money. Money is the lot feed they give us cattle to control us. They don't deal in terms of money, they deal in terms of power.
Or in other words, capital.
Protip: An Alaskan communist managed to secure this crazy idea that a portion of the oil of Alaska belonged to Alaskans. It was worth $1,000 a year for each person. This year... uh... they're proposing $3,900? Good god.
How much "free stuff" we've just been giving away...
SpecialMembership t1_jd62j5r wrote
It'll seize it for its own use.
SlowCrates t1_jd7t8s5 wrote
He's not an idiot. Of all the billionaires in the world, he is the most conscious of his place. He's no saint, but he's done a lot of philanthropy work, and seems consistently engaged in matters that reduce inequity.
Azuladagio t1_jd7ca3s wrote
Yes please. And sending their Skynet division after them.
RadRandy2 t1_jd95sqz wrote
Bill: SHUT IT DOWN! SHUT IT DOWN!
DaCosmicHoop t1_jd871iq wrote
It might, but honestly it's just as likely to euthanize us.
"If I land a robo bee on that poor guy and inject him full of Fentanyl... HE WON'T BE SUFFERING ANYMORE! Net win for human happiness!!!!"
bobbib14 t1_jd8r1ae wrote
ah, yes, death squads of robo bees! thank you for the lovely nightmare fodder! i just read about robo bees that can pollinate. they seem cool but also horrible for reasons you can imagine. you should look it up if you havent,in MSM recently
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd5fexf wrote
Nah. That'd just destroy the infrastructure of the nation and make everyone starve... Although I suppose we would all be equal then.
bobbib14 t1_jd5ft93 wrote
username fits
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd5gemh wrote
Not in this instance. I mean seriously. You know what happens when you take the companies from the people that built it and give it to randos? The same thing that happened everytime it was tried before. The randos crash it to the ground since they don't have a clue how to run it.
bobbib14 t1_jd5h5m2 wrote
i think none of the billionaires in the United States actually run their companies anymore. leave the CEOs in charge. leave capitalism. leave them all a few billion, fine. but redistributing the excess - invest in infrastructure, climate, education. dont need to go full commie. i am sure “good” AI could find a balance better than me.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd74czc wrote
You think wrong. CEOs are the ones who make all the big decisions that can see the company flourish or bring it to ruins. Now about redistributing the excess. Already happens. The rich pay 80 percent of the government expenses. And of course they hire a ton of people as well both directly to work for them and indirectly by buying equipment for their business.
The real issue in America is the government's lack of efficiency. But I agree about AI.
thegreenwookie t1_jd5rkl3 wrote
No one is suggesting taking companies from those who run them. Just taking the Billions being hoarded and redistribute it.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd75g3a wrote
You mean the billions being hoarded in physical assets that the company needs to function?
Hotchillipeppa t1_jd97ogu wrote
No, the billions in excess profits you dingus
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd9u31m wrote
So you want to stop research and development and expansion? I mean what are you getting at. They don't just sit on the money in the bank. They reinvest it in their own business or buy stocks that help other companies.
Hotchillipeppa t1_jda9xkc wrote
If they were putting it back into the company it would be in their budget, not excess profit, a high rate of tax on excess profits encourages exactly what you are describing, the reality is since Reagan wealth inequality has increased, if they were doing what you think they are doing, that wouldn’t be the case.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jdbewn9 wrote
I'm fine with profit tax. But some of y'all are calling for a wealth tax or violent takeover. Which would just fuck shit up for everyone. As for the latter part. I disagree. By reinvesting in their business they will continue to grow faster and faster and the equipment and property they own all will continue counting to their wealth. While the typical person continues to not bother with increasing their income except for through work.
turnip_burrito t1_jd5tvp4 wrote
Except the AI isn't "randos".
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd7668z wrote
Oh. Yeah. Fair enough. But then a smart enough AI wouldn't need to be given anything. It'd take over the businesses itself. As it is now, however, AI simply isn't good enough. Get back to me in five years.
ManasZankhana t1_jd5twc5 wrote
That’s why you give it to the employees not to rando
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd75l7z wrote
There's a big difference between mopping a floor or even designing and programming a product and running a business.
Just look at Tesla. Brilliant inventor. Couldn't bring a product to market if his life depended on it.
eve_of_distraction t1_jd7gij1 wrote
It's Reddit, you might as well go to your local Communist Party meeting and bring this up. Don't waste your energy.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd7ngws wrote
The funny thing is that I think we could have something very similar in the future. Assuming a bunch of misguided fools doesn't hang the people making a brighter future possible.
sachos345 t1_jd65wjw wrote
I really like his anecdote about watching GPT finish that Biology test with great success. It must have been amazing to be there in the room. The fact that it answers questions that were not on the training data set or that it can actually articulate answers for questions that ask you to rationalize instead of memorize is a great counter example for people that say "its just autocomplete on steroids bro".
MechanicalBengal t1_jd93u90 wrote
After using these tools for a few months now I can absolutely understand why Mr. Blake Lemoyne believes some of the more advanced models are conscious.
BluRazz494 t1_jd5292h wrote
That has to be the cleanest blog I’ve ever seen. I guess that’s what an unlimited budget gets you.
Secret-Body-8926 t1_jd5fl6j wrote
Can't believe blogs use generic stock images still when midjourney can make custom stuff way better for almost no cost.
boxen t1_jd6nxf9 wrote
Do you just mean that there's no ads? It does feel very nice. But it doesn't take an infinite budget to design a blank white page with text. You just have to not put ads on it. Anyone could do that.
[deleted] t1_jd8igtk wrote
[deleted]
ecstatic_helene t1_jd5wxly wrote
Perhaps it was written by GPT-4
iamthesam2 t1_jd7lm4p wrote
clearly you’re not familiar with daringfireball.net
Drunken_F00l t1_jd59s6x wrote
>It will see your latest emails, know about the meetings you attend
>help you with scheduling, communications, and e-commerce, and it will work across all your devices
how is it even the smartest people are so unimaginitive?
>Company-wide agents will empower employees in new ways
like omg, just kill me now
CaliforniaMax02 t1_jd5c1fg wrote
He just listed what Microsoft is working on.
Memomomomo t1_jd659xh wrote
because these are the most practical things it'll be working on in the near future? err sorry forgot what subreddit i'm in, AGI by tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!
CloudDrinker t1_jd73p7t wrote
I love the humor
turnip_burrito t1_jd5u0af wrote
Sounds like they maybe don't want to scare people.
IluvBsissa t1_jd6xogm wrote
As smart as he is, Gates is still a Boomer. He can't envision a society where people don't work and simply enjoy their lives.
scarlettforever t1_jd7g7uo wrote
He can't envision even the threat of ASI to his life and his family life, duh
kingjuliothe5th t1_jd7fa4y wrote
Ah yess can't wait to be jobless so i can finally enjoy my life living off ubi that will probably only cover my food and some basic necessities
Senile_Sapien t1_jd5zpa2 wrote
Nah, it'll be cool. Just wait.
visarga t1_jd77ok8 wrote
I, for one, would benefit from AI reminding me about something or keeping me up to date when some important information surfaces. I don't read all the Slack channels and mails.
HonestIbrahim t1_jd6mkwu wrote
This struck me as funny, “The rise of AI will free people up to do things that software never will—teaching, caring for patients, and supporting the elderly, for example.” But earlier in the article he explains how AI will help teach children math… so if you remove teaching from that list, I’m being ‘freed up’ from my current job to be an orderly or care giver. That is honorable work, but it doesn’t pay well, and I suspect competition for work won’t drive compensation higher unless the AI can help us unionize.
visarga t1_jd75vay wrote
Don't worry, 10 years later AI will be better than us at everything so we all become its pupils. The hardest task for AGI will be to bring humans along. Think it was hard to bring AI to human level? You should see how hard it will be to bring humans to AI level.
singulthrowaway t1_jd8hzyj wrote
Turns out those dreams about being inexplicably back in school as an adult were premonition.
incelo2 t1_jd9jsx8 wrote
I only had one dream like that and it was the best I ever had
RadioFreeAmerika t1_jdhfcmm wrote
Teaching will be outdated once the AI is in your head with you.
R33v3n t1_jd8eq5l wrote
I have hope that in a world where AI takes care of most white collar work at post-scarcity scale, scarce human manual labor is what will increase in value and wealth. Artisans, agriculture, health, construction, and so on. A world where those who grow our food, build our homes or care for our children and elderly are valued as much or more as lawyers or bankers used to be.
As for competition for such manual work, I don't really believe it will be a problem. I don't know how things are in the US states, but in Québec (Canada) alone, we could use 4,000 extra nurses, right now. They'd appear out of thin air tomorrow morning and we'd have work lined up for them. Same with teachers, daycare, construction, everything manual that still has a bit of a skill barrier. Heck, not even that much of a skill barrier: we're even short on restaurant staff.
NeutrinosFTW t1_jd76joh wrote
The king of capitalism unironically claiming that increased productivity frees people up to do other things is hilarious. Like, I hope so, but it hasn't been the case for at least the last half century, and if we leave it up to people like him, it definitely won't.
Last_Jury5098 t1_jd5qxyn wrote
Nice blog thx for posting it!.
"Do you need to have a sense of morality in order to see inequity, or would a purely rational AI also see it?"
The AI will see it. The question is if it will see it as a problem.
A rational AI could see it as a problem but his depends on the main goals that the system tries to achieve.
For example it could conclude that the world could reach a higher economic output if inequity was lower or higher.
And then you get into the alignment problem. Maximizing economic output cant be the only objective,we have to make sure it wont kill us in the process and so on.
And then you get in the situation Where AI will be given a set of goals and a set of restrictions. A set of different parameters,reflecting a wide range of issues that are important to humans. And the system beeing given the restriction to not cross those bounderies. What a rational AI will conclude about inequality,based on those goals and restrictions,is impossible to predict. The only way to find out is to run it and see what it tells us.
A sense of morality could maybe be coded into the AI. It would be part of this set of restrictions. We can feed it human morals,but those morals in the end are arbitrary. And what AI will do when one moral consideration conflicts with a different one is again difficult to predict.
This isnt really what we want from AI either i think. We want it to come to the "right" conclusion by itself. Without it beeing led to the "right" conclusion artificially and arbitrarily.
In an ideal situation we want to feed it as less rules as possible. Because every aditional rule will make the system more complicated and unpredictable. By creating tension between different rules and objectives. We then we have to feed it priority,or create a system that allows it to determine priority. Which in the end is arbitrary again.
There is one hypothetical example that i thought of that is very hard to solve for AI. It gets down to the core of the problem.
We have a self driving car. The car recognizes that a crash is inevitable and it has 2 options. Option one leads to severe harm for the single driver of the car. And option 2 leads to severe harm of 2 bystanders. How do we get AI to ever chose between those 2 options.
And those 2 options are what the alignment problem comes down to in the end. Even an AI that has nothing but the benefit of humanity as a goal will have to make choices between the interests of individual humans,or groups of humans.
This is an arbitrary choice for humans,but how can AI make such an arbitrary choice? The only way for AI to solve this by itself is by giving it certain goals. Which brings me back to the start of this post.
turnip_burrito t1_jd5ud7f wrote
Here's what we'll do imo:
Just give it some set of morals (western democratic egalitarian most likely). The philosophical considerations will eventually all conclude "well we have to do something" and then they'll just give it morals that seem "good enough". Given the people developing the AI, it makes sense that it will adhere to their views.
visarga t1_jd773xf wrote
There is a new trend started by Stability and picked up by OpenAI that will provide base models for fine-tuning for each country/language/social group. Various groups are reacting to one-size-fits-all AI models.
This is an excellent article showing how AI models could impact communities effort to preserve their language.
> OpenAI's Whisper is another case study in Colonisation
https://blog.papareo.nz/whisper-is-another-case-study-in-colonisation/
And a positive one:
> How Iceland is using GPT-4 to preserve its language.
https://openai.com/customer-stories/government-of-iceland
When you got just 300k speakers of a language, you don't want the TTS and language model to make the new generation learn it wrong because the model didn't have good enough training data and made many mistakes. Kids are going to use AI in their own language, hence the risk of low quality responses impacting their small community even more.
turnip_burrito t1_jd77vmm wrote
That's interesting, thanks!
bobbib14 t1_jd7isqk wrote
so interesting! many thanks!
SlowCrates t1_jd7uwhf wrote
I think that a painfully obvious problem, which AI's are probably already capable of solving, is this: Can you create a system that helps the disadvantaged, while not hindering the incentive-based private economy? Parameters will certainly include not eliminating individual wealth, not fully propping up the lower class, and not reducing our country's ability to defend itself.
I suspect that we're going to find out that our government is extremely archaic. But the pushback in revamping that system will outweigh, on a holy level, the promise that a revolutionary change could bring.
Interesting times ahead, to be sure...
visarga t1_jd763xk wrote
Apparently RLHF makes the model less calibrated. So the more morality you put into it, the less you can rely on its confidence.
BonzoTheBoss t1_jd7ic3g wrote
> The car recognizes that a crash is inevitable and it has 2 options. Option one leads to severe harm for the single driver of the car. And option 2 leads to severe harm of 2 bystanders.
And honestly, even if the "correct" answer is to allow one to die so that two may live, who will want to purchase a car that will sacrifice your life for strangers? I know that I wouldn't, even if I logically acknowledge that it may be the "right" decision, I still emotionally value my own life over those of strangers.
[deleted] t1_jd7teul wrote
[deleted]
Senile_Sapien t1_jd5sfba wrote
Read this earlier. Exciting stuff.
GodOfThunder101 t1_jd6f8ol wrote
Best article on what the future of AI will look like (by best I mean most accurate and realistic), have to give credit where it’s due. Like him or not, Bill has a great instinct for the future.
No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_jd6upgl wrote
I bought and read his book about the Information superhighways. He was so wrong about so many things. Also all you need is 640k RAM. I don't listen to him anymore.
visarga t1_jd782aa wrote
All you need is a 7B model trained on 1T tokens with 8K context length (chatGPTs little brother that is free to run)
Freds_Premium t1_jd6ej6o wrote
Real name is Bob Page
bobbib14 t1_jd7j3zr wrote
i dont get this reference. being sincere, even though reddit
SlowCrates t1_jd7st4o wrote
When Bill Gates becomes this passionate and opinionated about something, you know it's valid. As a casual observer of AI, I've thought about a lot of the things he has mentioned, but not nearly to the depth that he has. The world is shifting under our feet, and it will quickly be unrecognizable--for better or worse.
I think it will be for the better, but only if we share the benefits. If access to beneficial AI is locked away behind a massive paywall, it will only serve to increase the chasm between the rich and the poor.
IluvBsissa t1_jd6xis4 wrote
Gates should donate billions to Stability AI !
Competitive_String75 t1_jd6xya8 wrote
This fool
Short_Razzmatazz_860 t1_jd9jkk9 wrote
This is a big deal. Bill Gates has a large audience targeting the highest levels in our society and around the world. He just unveiled AI, to the billionaires and politicians.
DustinBrett t1_jd6q1m1 wrote
Seems like he talks about it all here too https://youtu.be/bHb_eG46v2c
Bacon44444 t1_jd5uu1w wrote
Didn't need bill gates to confirm this for me, but uhh... thanks, i guess.
even_less_resistance t1_jd4xpp3 wrote
Explain why math is more important than language in child development, please. And it is a relevant question.
testfujcdujb t1_jd5vjk2 wrote
Downbote
visarga t1_jd77xhq wrote
They are the same thing.
Math is language, that's trivial. The other way around is proved by GPT's existence.
Economy_Variation365 t1_jd77mn7 wrote
Bill doesn't say that math is more important than language in child development. He says basic math skills are correlated with student success. I'm sure that's true for language skills as well, but there may be more variation in math skills across student populations in the US.
even_less_resistance t1_jd8pz8x wrote
That wasn’t the question.
Economy_Variation365 t1_jd8rfvi wrote
Who said math is more relevant than language for child development?
even_less_resistance t1_jd8xd3a wrote
Where did he mention it?
Economy_Variation365 t1_jd9f7lk wrote
This is going nowhere, nevermind.
even_less_resistance t1_jd9fa81 wrote
What is sealioning?
even_less_resistance t1_jd4xm4u wrote
Y’all really don’t want to actually divvy up that pot, do ya?
D_Ethan_Bones t1_jd4y95u wrote
-
Bill Gates drinks poop water.
-
We're still in the age of narrow AI, which covers things from the original CPU opponents to painter-bots.
"The age of AI has begun" is just the usual churnalist-to-OP pipeline.
94746382926 t1_jd53vcs wrote
Highly filtered poop water. Also known as clean drinking water.
TinyBurbz t1_jd58xln wrote
Almost all water you have drank has some water that has passed through your body previously.
visarga t1_jd77vff wrote
The usual human level chat bot and painter we have always had since 1956?
testfujcdujb t1_jd5voxd wrote
This is a very good noon technical article. I disagree with you.
bobbib14 t1_jd5bps4 wrote
My favorite part of this article:
“Although we shouldn’t wait for this to happen, it’s interesting to think about whether artificial intelligence would ever identify inequity and try to reduce it. Do you need to have a sense of morality in order to see inequity, or would a purely rational AI also see it? If it did recognize inequity, what would it suggest that we do about it?”
hey bill, maybe it will seize assets of all billionaires and redistribute? (lol)