Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

even_less_resistance t1_jd4xpp3 wrote

Explain why math is more important than language in child development, please. And it is a relevant question.

−13

D_Ethan_Bones t1_jd4y95u wrote

  1. Bill Gates drinks poop water.

  2. 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.

−26

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.

49

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

46

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)

129

Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd5gemh wrote

Replying to bobbib14 (#2,297,092)

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.

−17

bobbib14 t1_jd5h5m2 wrote

Replying to Spreadwarnotlove (#2,297,141)

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.

18

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.

14

turnip_burrito t1_jd5ud7f wrote

Replying to Last_Jury5098 (#2,297,997)

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.

4

Bacon44444 t1_jd5uu1w wrote

Didn't need bill gates to confirm this for me, but uhh... thanks, i guess.

0

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".

60

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.

4

SgathTriallair t1_jd6jign wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,299,740)

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.

21

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.

21

boxen t1_jd6mmja wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,299,740)

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?

7

boxen t1_jd6nxf9 wrote

Replying to BluRazz494 (#2,296,072)

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.

8

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.

4

HumanSeeing t1_jd6xac4 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,299,740)

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.

16

IluvBsissa t1_jd6xis4 wrote

Gates should donate billions to Stability AI !

2

Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd74czc wrote

Replying to bobbib14 (#2,297,191)

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.

0

SnipingNinja t1_jd75hly wrote

Replying to HumanSeeing (#2,301,129)

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.

2

Spreadwarnotlove t1_jd75l7z wrote

Replying to ManasZankhana (#2,298,246)

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.

1

visarga t1_jd75vay wrote

Replying to HonestIbrahim (#2,300,513)

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.

9

NeutrinosFTW t1_jd76joh wrote

Replying to HonestIbrahim (#2,300,513)

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.

5

visarga t1_jd773xf wrote

Replying to turnip_burrito (#2,298,284)

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.

5

Economy_Variation365 t1_jd77mn7 wrote

Replying to even_less_resistance (#2,295,730)

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.

1

BonzoTheBoss t1_jd7ic3g wrote

Replying to Last_Jury5098 (#2,297,997)

> 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.

1

IronPheasant t1_jd7knx3 wrote

Replying to KamikazeHamster (#2,302,418)

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...

6

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.

3

SlowCrates t1_jd7t8s5 wrote

Replying to bobbib14 (#2,296,770)

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.

3

SlowCrates t1_jd7uwhf wrote

Replying to Last_Jury5098 (#2,297,997)

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...

2

SgathTriallair t1_jd7zcqu wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,300,927)

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.

1

SgathTriallair t1_jd8003g wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,300,776)

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.

2

DaCosmicHoop t1_jd871iq wrote

Replying to bobbib14 (#2,296,770)

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!!!!"

1

R33v3n t1_jd8eq5l wrote

Replying to HonestIbrahim (#2,300,513)

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.

6

SgathTriallair t1_jd8g8kd wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,304,491)

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.

2

bobbib14 t1_jd8r1ae wrote

Replying to DaCosmicHoop (#2,304,405)

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

1

RadRandy2 t1_jd968tx wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,299,740)

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.

2

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.

2

RetroRocket80 t1_jd9og5r wrote

Replying to HumanSeeing (#2,301,129)

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.

1

SgathTriallair t1_jd9plpg wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,305,542)

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.

2

Hotchillipeppa t1_jda9xkc wrote

Replying to Spreadwarnotlove (#2,309,178)

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.

1

Spreadwarnotlove t1_jdbewn9 wrote

Replying to Hotchillipeppa (#2,310,300)

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.

1