PO0tyTng t1_j9aa9ks wrote

That is a great point. the context explains why.

Although it’s a hypothetical/thought exercise, the point is that it was indeed able to come up with this stuff.

My question is — if it actually had the means do these things, what would it take to switch from hypothetical to reality? One rogue programmer getting rid of an IF statement or row of training data?

All I can say is I hope automated weapon systems never have a chat bot user interface.


PO0tyTng t1_j96t56j wrote

It’s not like nanotubes need to be made in 1000 gallon cauldrons. I would think we would need far less material than raw/smelted steel. So it could be made in a kiln or something. Honestly though the amount of heat needed is not a hurdle in scaling this up.

Really manually intensive /precise processes like making a sheet of graphene have soooo many more barriers to scaling than simply “apply more heat”


PO0tyTng t1_j96oi5s wrote

From the article: > The plastic, which does not need to be sorted or washed as in traditional recycling, is “flashed” at temperatures over 3,100 kelvins (about 5,120 degrees Fahrenheit). “All we do is grind the material into small, confetti-sized pieces, add a bit of iron and mix in a small amount of a different carbon — say, charcoal — for conductivity,” Wyss said.

Sounds pretty damn scalable to me.


PO0tyTng OP t1_j6fwp0o wrote

I’m the opposite of a Luddite. I understand how it works. And I’m telling you, this is at the peak of the hype cycle.

Don’t get me wrong AI is changing out world. But as a person who creates training data for AI, I can tell you that people on this sub (or bots) are giving it undue attention. It’s nothing groundbreaking. It’s just marketed well and anyone who buys into the fear mongering is gonna get got. It’s just funny to see, is all.