Where Scoot makes the case about how an AGI could build an army of terminators in a year if it wanted.
Where Scoot makes the case about how an AGI could build an army of terminators in a year if it wanted.
I couldn’t find further holes in it
Here's a couple:
- iirc it claims we'll have reliable "agents" in mid 2025. Fellas it's almost June in the year of the "agents" and frankly I don't see shit. We are not starting strong here.
- they predict a 10k person anti-AI protest in DC. For context, the recent "Hands Off" protest in DC saw 100k person turnout. Israel / Palestine protest saw 300K in DC in 2023. A ten-thousand-person protest isn't really anything out of the ordinary? It's almost like the authors have never been to a protest, don't understand collective action because they live in a bubble or something? But they assure us, this document is thoroughly researched maybe their point was self-deprecating, "woe is us, only 10K people show up :("
- When they get into their super agi fanfic, they describe Agent-n as "never stops training" continuously learning from the environment. Like the only way I read this is that somehow, we discover paradigm shifting algorithmic discoveries by coincidence in the next couple years that make DL obsolete so we can abandon train-inference approaches and instead have this embodied entity that is constantly taking feedback from the environment to "train" but the system itself is still described under the massive data center heavy DL framework. It's like they know that bio intelligence has this continuous feedback mechanism, so obviously ai researchers will just patch that in, how hard can it be?
- Ong, i swear they just put in there at some point "hallucinations are solved" the thing they have been claiming will be solved in the next month since 2023.
Where Scoot makes the case about how an AGI could build an army of terminators in a year if it wanted.
Article summary:
A close look into the people and entities who helped draft and advocate for California’s controversial AI safety bill (SB 1047) reveals that one of the bill’s co-sponsors could have a significant conflict of interest Dan Hendrycks, an executive at Center for AI Safety — the firm whose lobbying arm helped draft the bill — co-founded a company called Gray Swan that offers AI safety compliance tools that seem positioned to provide the type of auditing data the bill would require; Gray Swan publicly launched on Tuesday The Center's lobbying arm was set up so it could help draft SB 1047 after state senator Scott Wiener approached the Center
In my more innocent college days, there was a group of people doing a reading of it in the dorm lounge laughing their asses off. Ong I thought it was a hyper self-aware satire that was making fun of internet "umm ackshully" / iamverysmart posters. There's no way someone earnestly spent their time writing over half a million words on a self-insert Harry Potter fanfic as some form of mental masturbation... right?
Yud, it's not too late to say sike bro.
This is a quality sneer, bravo 👍 . I had randomly encountered this super-recursive article in the wild after unfortunately stumbling upon some 🐀 blog post about how either the CTT lives in your heart or it doesn't (NOT A CULT).
Speaking of hyper computation, reminds my of how ol' Ilya was saying 'obviously' the only reason NNs success could be explained is because they are minimizing Kolmogorov complexity, a literally uncomputabile problem. Try teaching a NN to learn 4-digit addition and tell me if the result looks Kolmogorov optimal.
BigMuffin69
joined 1 year ago
Ackshually, my metric gives 0 measure to ASI minds and 1 measure to meat sac minds, therefore mu({bio bois}) >> mu({ASI})