Seriously, what dipshit is going, “hmm well now he’s gone too far!”

The best time was 100 years ago. The second-best time is now.

We should be taking them with the rope...

We should never have taken them at their word.

The easiest way to stop him is to walk up to him and whisper into his ear "end computer similation" and he will just disappear.

It’s time to take CEO’s money away!

The word is it’s time to take the CEOs away

I think the quote that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is a bit older, and said about all the lessons of history before it.

Somehow humanity doesn’t like the wisest rules out there. And prefers to read Palanick and talk about post-modernism instead of looking at the root.

He is the cousin of Sam Mainman, who is an actual human being.

I bet in 10 years my insurance plan will no longer cover imaging being interpereted by a radiologist.

That’s a very sharp prediction, thanks. I will run that by some people.

*parasite....

Nothing bro about this shit stain..

*“Podcast-bro”

Almost everything tech bros say is to boost short term share prices. Any resemblance to the truth is coincidental.

AI is worse than crypto. Most crypto projects use proof of stake which is way more resource efficient than mining. Also the mining that does happen usually happens where there is excess generation instead of azure datacenters

What is really annoying is that there are a lot of really good data modeling applications, they are just in research areas. Generative AI is absolutely a waste of resources, but a ton of money and energy is spent on that instead of on the applications that are actually bearing fruit.

I don’t think you’re imagining the same thing they are when you hear the word “AI”. They’re not imagining a computer that prints out a new idea that is about as good as the ideas that humans have come up with. Even that would be amazing (it would mean that a computer could do science and engineering about as well as a human) but they’re imagining a computer that’s better than any human. Better at everything. It would be the end of the world as we know it, and perhaps the start of something much better. In any case, climate change wouldn’t be our problem anymore.

$ GPT how do we solve climate change?

GPT: command not found

$ cd /home/chatgpt

cd: command not found

There was a (fiction) book I was called “all the birds in the sky”. I really liked it. Highly recommend.

One of the plot threads is a rich tech bro character that’s like “the world is doomed we need to abandon it for somewhere else. Better pour tons of resources into this sci-fi sounding project”. And I’m just screaming at the book “use that money for housing and transport and clean energy you absolute donkey”.

There are a lot of well understood things we could be doing to make the world better, but they’re difficult for idiotic political reasons. Racism, nimbyism, emotional immaturity, etc.

Sam is actually a liar though.

Everyone in open source AI has been calling him a snake ever since llama1 came out. If you want a more authoritative source, look to the CEO of huggingface, oldschool AI researchers and such.

Now this is a sh.itjust.works comment if I ever saw one. Gold medal, keep it up.

He is not the one making it.

Yann LeCun would probably be a better source. He does actual research (unlike Altman), and I’ve never seen him over-hype or fear monger (unlike Altman).

The day of reckoning is approaching fast. May this teach a lesson to my fellow techies that tech billionaires aren’t any better than the other billionaires. I hope there won’t be another cryptoscam after LLMs 🤷‍♀️

Or, if there’s another one, I hope that it won’t consume massive amounts of energy. If techbros only hurt themselves, I suppose it’s fine.

Martin Shkreli is the scumbag’s name you’re looking for.

From wikipedia: He was convicted of financial crimes for which he was sentenced to seven years in federal prison, being released on parole after roughly six and a half years in 2022, and was fined over 70 million dollars

I’d agree the first part but to say all Ai is snake oil is just untrue and out of touch. There are a lot of companies that throw “Ai” on literally anything and I can see how that is snake oil.

But real innovative Ai, everything to protein folding to robotics is here to stay, good or bad. It’s already too valuable for governments to ignore. And Ai is improving at a rate that I think most are underestimating (faster than Moore’s law).

It’s not snake oil. It is a way to brute force some problems which it wasn’t possible to brute force before.

And also it’s very useful for mass surveillance and war.

Stop trying to make “streets ahead” happen!

Does Woz count? He’s CEO of the Silicon Valley Comic Con (or he used to be anyway).

It’s hard to find a very of any variety that isn’t a raving douche

Applicable to everyone really, especially those that want to sell you something that sounds too good to be true.

Should your disappointment here really be pointed at the journalists?

People talk a lot about the genericisation of brand names, but the branding of generic terms like this really annoys me.

I’ll use the example I first noticed. A few years ago, the Conservative government was under criticism for the minimum wage being well under a living wage. In response, they brought in the National Living Wage, which was an increase to the minimum wage, but still under the actual living wage. However, because of the branding, it makes criticising it for not meeting the actual living wage more difficult, as you have to explain the difference between the two, and as the saying goes, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

Tell me honestly, are you a bot or do you sincerely believe this shit and based on which qualification and experience?

Gunpowder, electricity, combustion engines, universal electronic computers, rocketry, lasers, plastics - none of these made any dramatic changes. It was all slow iterative process of fuzzy transitions and evolution.

While these made pretty fundamental impacts. Sam Altman’s company is using fuckloads of data to calculate some predictive coefficients, and the rest of its product can be done by students.

It’s just real-life power controllers trying their muscles at bending the tech industry with usual means - capturing resources and using them to assert control. There were no such resources in the beginning, and then datasets turned into something like oil.

Generally in computing (when a computer is a universal machine) everyone able to program can do a lot of things. This makes the equality there kinda inconvenient for real life bosses who can call airstrikes and deal in oil tankers.

There was the smart and slow way of killing that via slow oligopolization, but everyone can see how that doesn’t work well. Some people slowly move to better things, and some were fine with TV telling them how to live, they don’t even need Internet. All these technologies are still kinda modular and even transparent. And despite what many people think, both idealistic left and idealistic right build technologies for the same ultimate goal, so Fediverse is good and Nostr is good and everything that functions is good.

So - that works, but human societies are actually developing some kind of immunity to centralized bot-poisoned platforms.

To keep the stability of today’s elites (I’d say these are by now pretty international), you need something qualitatively different. A machine that is almost universal in solving tasks, but doesn’t give the user transparency. That’s their “AI”. And those enormous datasets and computing power are the biggest advantage of that kind of people over us. So they are using that advantage. That’s the kind of solution that they can do and we can’t.

Simultaneously to that there’s a lot of AI hype being raised to try and replace normal computing with something reliant on those centralized supply chains. Hardware production was more distributed before the last couple of decades. Now there are a few well-controllable centers. They simply want to do the same with consumer software. Because if the consumers don’t need something, they won’t have that something when they see a need.

All these aside, today’s kinds of mass surveillance can’t be done with (EDIT:without) something like that “AI”. There simply won’t be enough people to have sufficient control.

So - there are a few notable traits of this approach converging on the same interest.

It’s basically a project to conserve elites. The new generation of thieves and bureaucrats wants to become the new aristocracy.

Politicians!

This trick should come in handy pal

12ft.io/www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/…/680152/