Even if it is against the terms of service of ChatGPT, what are they going to do about it? There are no legal judgments if AI output even is copyrightable, and no judgments if training on copyrightable material is fair use.

And OpenAI trained on a lot of copyright material, so they better think twice about opening that can of worms.

They only thing they can try to do, is limit the access of Google to ChatGPT's output, but good luck with that, if they want it to remain available to the general public.

Only advice is give is to live healthy and avoid risk to life.

It would suck if my friends and family would not make it to the lush abundance utopia with massive life extension

>Then they spent 20K$+ compute on training.

Your estimate is a few magnitudes too low

One answer is the simulation argument:

If the singularity is truly such a pivotal moment in the history in the universe, it makes sense that the time around the singularity will be more often simulated post singularity in many iterations.

Thus the typical observers will find themselves right around the singularity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point#The_Omega_Point_cosmology

roughly the idea, a totally entangle and contracted universe is the perfect simulation of everything. An is reality itself, as cloning is not allowed

They are useful now.

Two friend of mine use ChatGPT for work.

of there are many biases.

These neural networks mostly consistent of weights and biases.

The German CovidApp was surprisingly solid

any sufficiently advanced LLM is indistinguishable from trueAGI™?

Geopolitics cares

There is something ironic about a Sci-Fi magazine rejecting a new technology.

I would prefer they simply chose the stories that are good. Be it human, AI assisted or purely AI written.

For now, human curation is still necessary - on the author and the publisher side, for good results.

With the next AI versions , it will probably be impossible to tell anyway.

The article is very clearly written, establish the foundations well. Highly recommended.

We allow allow humans do drive, we allow possibly emotional upset, drugged, sensory challenged, tired people distracted by a person/call/whatever to make make a judgement of value of human life. Are we willing to go there?

If the singularity goes as planned

we will have universal advanced income, or no need for money at all

abundance!

The bar keep rising pretty fast

Every art student

Because the action appearing to be good is only obvious in hindsight.

>Central to many of our strategic planning techniques in Cicero is the idea of regularization towards human-like behavioral policies, to ensure CICERO's play remains roughly compatible with human play

That implies there could be more optimal strategies even with alliances with human players? Is there interest in exploring this, and evolving the strategies beyond what humans have found so far, as it has happened with chess and go? See where and Cicero2 could move the Metagame to?

>We're not really interested in building lying AIs

Why? Child psychology sees lies as an important development step in the theory of mind - the insight that knowledge is not universal.

In real world applications, AI might encounter lies. Do you think these systems can be deal with that as good, when they are not themselves capable of it? E.g. for planning, you have the model the other side, how do you model lying successfully, when you cannot lie?

Some answer said that the chat history is not preserved beyond a certain length. Does Cicero track past cooperation/betrayal from other players somewhere else?

remindme! 2 days

Players have felt that Cicero is way more forgiving (cooperating after a recent betrayal) than human players, when it serves it purpose for the next turn. Is that your observation as well?

Does Cicero have full memory of the whole game and chat, and can e.g. remember a betrayal from many turns ago?

I also understand that it reevaluates all plans each turn. Does that basically mean it does not have/need an internal long term strategy beyond it current optimization of the long term results of the next move?

I say a descent fully AI generated political speech will come much earlier (GPT3 does okay short ones) than a descent fully AI generated movie. Almost obvious when you remember that some movies contain political speeches, but speeches don't contain movies.

I mean everyone one who ever published a text on the internet, or wrote a text on reddit before 2021 could have the same complaint with language models - but I have only seen the outcry a bit from programmers. I understand their reactionism, but the genie is out of the bottle, and humanity will be better for it.

Same. GPT2 and GPT3 were impressive steps. This is clearly still GPT3.+