thegoldengoober t1_jclb6kj wrote

Reply to comment by SnipingNinja in Those who know... by Destiny_Knight

I initially took Google at face value and believed they were apprehensive about releasing due to bad actors. I thought Google was way ahead of everyone, and that all it was gonna take would be for them to apply their systems to products to match the competition. But now we've seen that competition, and we've only seen claims from Google.

I mean obviously they have work done. Impressive work based on demonstrations and papers. But even knowing that it still feels like somewhere along the line they got complacent and fell behind what we're seeing now, and this behavior is them trying to stall and catch back up.

Which is not what I expected for the time that competition finally forced their hand as far as AI is concerned.


thegoldengoober t1_jcl955u wrote

Reply to comment by SnipingNinja in Those who know... by Destiny_Knight

That's exactly what i mean though. I've been able to use Bing Chat for week, and now GPT-4 by itself for days and I know it's performance. And it's crazy good. We're multiple releases into GPT LLMs. We have open source models. All these have been extensively used and explored by people. We can't say the same for anything Google has developed.


thegoldengoober t1_jcjoau6 wrote

Reply to comment by foxgoesowo in Those who know... by Destiny_Knight

I would love to not underestimate them. I assumed Google was way ahead of the game compared to everybody else. But Microsoft and Open AI keep showing off more and more impressive shit and applying it in actually practical ways, and Google hasn't shown anything comparable in that regard. Afaik, at least.


thegoldengoober t1_j98xcda wrote

This sounds like the kind of thing required to make an AI system truly general. Right now, as I understand it, no matter how capable we build a system its capabilities remain rigid. I imagine something more plastic could be immensely more capable.


thegoldengoober t1_iy4hzyg wrote

Because the problems are hard. When we first were getting the advanced VR setups we were getting in 2014 the tech was living its best life piggybacking off of smart phone R&D.

These days XR has its own problems that need to be solved that are mostly unique to it, and that lack of intersecting with other industries is going to make it take longer.

That's why Meta is needing to invest so hard into it, to solve these problems, and so there's an XR market to sustain funding to those solutions.

Tested was able to see behind the scenes at Meta's reality lab to see demonstrations of the kind of things I'm talking about


thegoldengoober t1_ivcuvj3 wrote

We can't even be ethical to non-digital minds. There's a hell of a lot more talk about it for sure, but talk is a lot different than action. If history serves digital minds are going to be hella abused regardless. Not that it's any reason not to engage in the dialogue, but it does leave me feeling pessimistic.


thegoldengoober t1_itorjum wrote

Yeah, I don't see why not. Unless they don't see the reason. Maybe it's better for them to just turn the matter to computonium. Maybe their simulations are so close to reality that they figure any reason to search the universe might as well be done in their simulations where they have god-like powers to explore beyond what they could outside of them. Or maybe none of this is related at all. It's fun to speculate though. At the very least it's fun sci-fi.