greatdrams23 t1_jec1fak wrote

The current cycle is 1 say it, 2 believe it, 3 don't think about it. 4 What's next?

Is AI here? Yes, AI is here, what's next? is AGI is here, yes AGI is here, what's next? Is singularity here? Yes, what's next. Is immortality here, yes, what's next?

People need to stop and think about how difficult this all is.


greatdrams23 t1_je4f80v wrote

According to the national health service, condoms are 82% effective.

"Perfect use: 98% effective. This means that 2 in 100 women whose partners use a condom will get pregnant in a year.

Typical use: around 82% effective. This means around 18 in 100 women will get pregnant in a year".


greatdrams23 t1_je2lsbg wrote

I understand perfectly well exponential growth. We've had it for the last 60 years, but it took 60 years to get this far.

Why did it take so long to get here when we had exponential growth 60 years ago?

Ans: because exponential growth still takes time!

Let's say we need another 1000000 times the computer power that we have now. How long will that take?


greatdrams23 t1_je1r36s wrote

AI will not be capable of doing that sales job in a years time.

People are just making wild guesses. There is no thought Ito how complex it will be to get to the next level of AI.

I've seen no evidence that this will happen any time soon. People keep saying the word exponential, and they even post videos of what exponential means, but they proves nothing.

Look at an exponential curve: your have to define where AI is currently in that curve and where it needs to be to achieve the greatness everyone espouses, and also define the small if the X axis.


greatdrams23 t1_jdy192q wrote

Quantum computing is a long way away. You cannot just assume that or any other technology will give what is needed.

Once again. I look for evidence that AGI and singularity will happen, but see no evidence.

It just seems to be assumed singularity will happen, and therefore proof is not necessary.


greatdrams23 t1_jdomo5u wrote

"These arguments fall under one fundamental flaw. You cannot disprove their claims because their claims have no evidence in the first place."

That is a seriously flawed argument. If a person states that singularity is close (or AGI or anything) it is up to them to prive it.

In fact, your have it completely the wrong way around. I cannot disprove a claim that singularity is close, because the claim has no evidence in the first place.


greatdrams23 t1_jd3cl89 wrote

If a student was allowed to use ChatGPT from age 11 to age 22, what would they learn?

The purpose of writing an essay is not because the teacher wants to know the answer, it is because the student learns how to write an essay.

This in turn develops thinking skills.

It would be like asking a robot to do all your physical exercises.


greatdrams23 t1_jad9pur wrote

Texture and colour are very important. And temperature.

Most people think red and white wine taste different, but in tests, blindfolded people cannot tell the difference when the temperature is the same.

Cooked food tastes different when it has gone cold.

Texture of biscuits, temperature of ice cream, sogginess of cereal all count for a lot.