I just wish he'd have a little more tact to his argument. His fears are legit, but if he would just say "could lead to human death or subservience" or something like that, people would be more willing to listen instead of just jumping to "were all going to die" every single time.

While it will lead to more instability and problems short term, it will definitely mean legislators won't be able to turn a blind eye to the job displacement for nearly as long. I realized just a week or so ago that robotics isn't nearly as far behind as we initially thought.

He's one of the world's most renowned persons regarding linguistics. He's also expressed strong negative opinions on AI in general. It was just a lighthearted joke, but worth looking into. He's done a video interviews/panels on AI recently. I think he's mistaken in many regards on this topic, but still interesting to hear his viewpoints.

I think Noam Chomsky might murder you if he read this ;)

Plugins are all GPT-4 needs to rise to a whole new level. We can't effectively judge it yet.

Who knows for sure, but I definitely take it with a grain of salt since the plugin was shown as unverified and it showed no real detail. I still think it's just around the corner, though!

Saw a video today of a rather rudimentary display of a memory plugin. It took information from a onedrive doc, was given new info from a prompt that updated it's knowledge. They closed out and went back in and it seemed to provide the correct answer then. Whether that is fully capable or something else comes along, I can't imagine memory in some meaningful capacity is more than a few weeks away.

It's not just the privileged groups and governments we need to be concerned about. Think about the level of cyberterrorism and misinformation these tools could be used for in the wrong hands. Imagine if someone gets pissed off at you and uploads a deepfake of you doing something heinous and it only takes a few minutes of effort. Even if you have the ability to disprove it (which isn't a given) it could cost your job or reputation. Think about the ability to manipulate markets. The ability to sway your emotions. Social media is one thing, but once these tools truly become full-fledged assistants/companions/partners, they could be turned on us.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, but I think we can all agree that humans are capable of deplorable things and some will act on them if motivated. We need to prepare for the worst, not only in an alignment sense but in a user capability sense.

The fact is the situation is going to be different for everyone. For instance, if someone is 46 vs. 23, they probably don't want to go be a roofer. You might say nursing, but if bad smells and blood really bother you, that won't work.

Also, we could say go learn to use this new AI tool now, but two weeks from now something could render that other tool obsolete. It's really just going to be a matter of keeping your ear to the ground to see what's coming and try to leverage what you can.

In general, anything requiring decent dexterity or empathy could take a bit longer, but robotics aren't as far behind as most believe.

I think the way I see it is the more I can invest now, especially if I don't need to touch it for the foreseeable future, the more economic gains I'll see as AI is incorporated into businesses. Those profits will be reflected in the stock of companies across many industries even as/especially as the workforce is reduced. Granted, there will be losers, but I think the winners will see such a massive economic boom that it will far outweigh the companies that don't adapt and fail. If we can have that money invested, not having a decent job will still suck, but at least those investments will be working for us in the meantime for if or when we really need it.

I've seen this done before but I'd like to see more research on the effectiveness of it.

This is the way. No point in speculating on specific stocks, it will be too volatile. When AI wins as a whole, this is how you get your piece of the pie.

Whisper is basically this, which is an Open AI product. Not enough people are realizing just how important Whisper is going to be.

The key for learning in particular is not so much the material itself (with some exceptions) but rather the process of attaining information, processing it in a thoughtful and discerning manner, and disseminating it in a concise and digestible way. Going forward, the average person will need to retain less and less information, and while you can decide whether you think that is a good or bad thing, the ability to find what you need quickly is going to be what's most important.

I've said it before, but it makes zero sense for these systems to be 100% accurate with whether it's AI generated because it strongly disincentivizes anyone from using it. Creators don't want to be called out on it for being lazy. Researchers don't want to be called out for plagiarism. Students don't want to be called out for cheating. Copywriters... And on and on. It only hurts them and by introducing any tools to try to identify them leads to witch hunts and false accusations that could ruin livelihoods. It's going to be a bit of a mess trying to validate that students for instance actually learn the material, but if they validate the information as factual and use some thought and revision in prompt engineering to generate quality output, that seems to be a very valuable new skill heading into a very different world than just 6 months ago...

He's not entirely wrong. While you did bring up a lot of points that are indeed quite likely to happen and are interesting in their own right, it would have been much more interesting if you dove deeper in the the ramifications of this on creativity. Will it mean more people will be able to bring their visions to life without being an established Hollywood producer with a monumental budget or will it mean that nothing will have creative merit anymore because the process is so synthetic and lifeless? Will it mean that stage productions will increase as a more novel way of getting the theatrical experience or will that continue to be very niche because it's expensive and out of reach of many people?

I'm just saying if you are going to hit on this low-hanging fruit, you would get a lot more traction and engagement if you offered more (even speculative) insight into why this is so important and what to be excited for/afraid of.

For one thing, musical components are much easier to identify direct comparisons with than visual art, especially with the diffusion model art uses, which literally rebuilds the image from scratch. Leaving the sourcing of the dataset out of the debate, you will see similar styles, brushstrokes, line art, etc. but that is going to prove very difficult in a legal argument as a direct copy. With music, however, we can much more easily detect a famous riff or melody or whatever that is incredibly distinctive to a particular song, even with slight variations in tempo, instrument, etc.. so it has a much more tangible, quantifiable way to identify a direct copy of a song. I don't know exactly how MusicLM works or how many of the music generators work at this point, and they may still be able to argue that it's been transformed in a meaningful way that did not directly use or replicate, but I do think it will be a tougher battle legally.

In any case, I think it's an inevitable reality that needs to be worked through rather than hidden from.

Time for our mandated 10-minute flash mob break!