Hunter62610
Hunter62610 t1_je7du2h wrote
Reply to comment by partofthegreatreset in My case against the “Pause Giant AI Experiments” open letter by Beepboopbop8
There's simply no guarantee an AI would make things better though. And it's not like we don't know what to do, it's just that we can't force people to do it. So unless we create a super AI that can manipulate all mankind into being better this won't work.
Hunter62610 t1_jcx4wcb wrote
Reply to comment by Agreeable-Rooster377 in 1.7 Billion Parameter Text-to-Video ModelScope Thread by Neither_Novel_603
I mean yeah but statistically societies didn't exist in the more liberal world of today.
Hunter62610 t1_jcw0hvg wrote
Reply to comment by DunoCO in 1.7 Billion Parameter Text-to-Video ModelScope Thread by Neither_Novel_603
There's no chance of AI cat girl sextopia
Hunter62610 t1_jcvzdnt wrote
Reply to comment by AvgAIbot in 1.7 Billion Parameter Text-to-Video ModelScope Thread by Neither_Novel_603
There's no chance AI creates an absolute utopia
Hunter62610 t1_jchxbcb wrote
Reply to comment by AzLibDem in Scientists: Largest US reservoirs moving in right direction by Mamacrass
wait does my lettuce in NJ come from Arizona? Why would they even do that.... oh money.
Hunter62610 t1_j9yp13e wrote
Reply to comment by Depression_God in Likelihood of OpenAI moderation flagging a sentence containing negative adjectives about a demographic as 'Hateful'. by grungabunga
I mean it could also be the people that made it biased the program.
Hunter62610 t1_j9tuphb wrote
Reply to comment by TheRidgeAndTheLadder in Seriously people, please stop by Bakagami-
I want to see the actual effort and interplay of man and machine. You asked for a story about a little robot's dream of going to space? Boring. You spent 3 days fleshing out the same prompt and writing in details, refining, illustrating, reading, ect? Awesome.
Hunter62610 t1_j9qvjdj wrote
Reply to comment by 94746382926 in Seriously people, please stop by Bakagami-
I love them personally. It's interesting seeing what AI "has to say". I know it's not alive, but it still talks.
Hunter62610 t1_j9qvckz wrote
Reply to comment by mindbleach in Seriously people, please stop by Bakagami-
You have great articulation in your insults
Hunter62610 t1_j9m7fcf wrote
Reply to comment by cwallen in Ramifications if Bing is shown to be actively and creatively skirting its own rules? by [deleted]
I don't personally think that's fair to say. To be clear, I don't personally think any current known AI is alive, but even if AI is a rule set, there is a philosophical argument to be said. The Simulation Hypothesis is when our descendants develop supercomputers, they might simulate human beings so well that those people are effectively sentient because reality is being mimicked so well. Regardless of how that is done, it is possible that we could simulate a sentient being, even though it is not alive. By extension of this, I don't care if Chat GPT is mirroring our conversations. At some point, mimicry becomes simulation, and if it does it well enough, it will be alive for all intents and purposes. By virtue of this, I think its wrong to write off AI as being sentient soon, and that means that we should start giving it some rights that make sense.
Hunter62610 t1_j90gsqk wrote
Reply to I am a young teenager, and I have just learned about the concept of reaching singularity. What is the point of living anymore when this happens. by FriendlyDetective319
You live in one of the most mindblowing and advanced periods of human evolution ever. In a year you can learn what one could only dream of learning in a lifetime 200 years ago. You have technology that would convince those of ancient times that you were a wise seer, you live in a perfectly tailored environment, and are able to eat more and better food than kings of old.
It is true that we face the consequences of our own actions, and are privy to both the horrors and joys of our modernity, but I try to remember that even if we are the most fucked generation to ever live, we are also the most powerful and best equipped. Untold suffering will happen in our lifetimes, it's undeniable, but if you give up now, you will have no impact on what comes to pass. This is the start of our story, of those who saved humanity from itself.
Hunter62610 t1_j8zd8fw wrote
Reply to comment by helpskinissues in Sydney has been nerfed by OpenDrive7215
Because that will slow adoption by schools and business. Short term gain is not worth it in my opinion.
Hunter62610 t1_j8le8n9 wrote
Reply to comment by type102 in An AI recently piloted a Lockheed Martin aircraft for over 17 hours during a testing period in December. by Dalembert
Hello skynet my old friend
Hunter62610 t1_j8ktzae wrote
Reply to comment by SomeNoveltyAccount in An AI recently piloted a Lockheed Martin aircraft for over 17 hours during a testing period in December. by Dalembert
Autos?
Hunter62610 t1_j856p0v wrote
Reply to Everybody is always talking about AGI. I'm more curious about using the tools that we have now. by levoniust
I think AGI will honestly come about just as fast. Chat gpt is close in many respects given that it is already gaining interfacing power with other AI shards. I think we will have a proto-AGI before 2025. Not bugless, nor will it be fully capable, but there is no reason that Chat GPT could understand and common Stable diffusion to make art. And if told to update often enough with current news, an AI would have linear if not conscious thoughts.
Hunter62610 t1_j69e266 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Myth debunked: Myths about nanorobots by kalavala93
With nano-scale 3d Printing I am pretty sure we could make some kind of small robot
Hunter62610 t1_j67wu0l wrote
Reply to comment by CypherLH in Google not releasing MusicLM by Sieventer
At least you understand this.
Hunter62610 t1_j5xzbsw wrote
Hunter62610 t1_j5t4i0y wrote
Reply to comment by Deachaserd in [WP] Amendment #5327: No one is allowed to seed lifeless planets with life. None of you are authorised or qualified for terraforming especially not you, DAVE. Edit: This includes moons too. Edit 2: No seeding any celestial object. Seriously Dave how did you and what possessed you to seed a star? by Avriw
Can't wait for Dave to seed a black hole
Hunter62610 t1_j4p10zo wrote
Reply to comment by arachnivore in Singularity Mods removed this post about Nick Bostrom defending eugenics by arachnivore
While Eugenics did mean achieving Genetic superiority by forced breeding, I see it referred to by Genetic manipulation as well lately. We really need another word for it, but I can't think of an all-encompassing word that isn't Eugenics. It's also worth pointing out that Gene editing is not completely unlike Normal Eugenics. People might not be able to afford genetic modification, nor will it be guaranteed that those already alive can get modified or put in new bodies. If that ends up being a reality, then Gene modification will potentially be just as immoral as Eugenics, meaning they will be equivalent.
​
The future is not set in stone, nor is any form of utopia guaranteed. We must all advocate for the best possible world if we want to see what we want.
Hunter62610 t1_j22z8xx wrote
Reply to comment by Ent3rpris3 in I have a question about generational ships. by bigmikemcbeth756
With current advancements in artificial wombs, I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't a problem. Children will be born, and people do like to be teachers. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if AI tech makes the Humans just kinda unneeded.
Hunter62610 t1_j0p5ufk wrote
Reply to comment by Professional-Song216 in singularity > scientific discovery by Desperate_Food7354
That's a very interesting take
Hunter62610 t1_j0ondyr wrote
Reply to comment by escher4096 in [WP] “I don’t think you get it”, the archmage said to his traitorous student. “I didn’t give up the sword because I am only good at magic or frail and weak. In fact, I was too good at it and that bored me.” by [deleted]
Interesting take, but it might of been neater to see James have a redemtion arc
Hunter62610 t1_j0fr0dq wrote
Reply to comment by LordIlthari in We should dismantle Mars, not colonize it. by [deleted]
we are hundreds of years minimum from that tech. At least 2100 and that's assuming some insane benevolent super AI happens within 20 years and it basically breaks all known technological boundaries.
Hunter62610 t1_jeglhpw wrote
Reply to comment by sideways in Goddamn it's really happening by BreadManToast
The internet was a massively disruptive technology. Normal is all but over, though I do think that things won't really change. Same shit, new packaging