I've found regarding nuances I discover in language learning it will really fail me. It will tell me the incorrect path, I correct it, it apologizes, then just to see I tell it that latest one was incorrect actually, it apologizes and I can put it in an endless loop of getting it to apologize as I correct it into the opposite of something over and over.
Maybe we need some kind of worldwide negative event first. In Star Trek lore, World War 3 starts this year (2026). Like with World War 2, perhaps it’s needed to calibrate the zeitgeist to a spot where a prosperous era can follow /shrug
A Star-Trek style "post-scarcity" economy can't exist in the real world. It depends on an impossible paradigmatic shift in basic human nature across the entire species (people just "evolve" beyond their base vices and desires such that they're willing to work purely for the sake of voluntarism and the betterment of humanity, there is no racism, no sexism, no struggles for power. *) and technology that violates basic physics (replicators, warp drives, transporters, etc.)
I'm sorry but anyone who looks at Star Trek as a serious model for anything is at best naive. It's a space fantasy show whose Luxury Space Communism is little more than set dressing because it's a capitalist enterprise (pun intended come at me petaQs) made by capitalists for capitalist ends.
Likewise, expecting LLMs to serve anti-capitalist ends (eliminating the need for jobs among anyone but the capitalist class) when they are entirely controlled by capitalists is naive.
* according to the canon set by Gene Roddenberry. What actually plays out in the franchise is different, because human conflict makes for better entertainment.
From the perspective of pre-history, anyone living in a western country is in a post-scarcity society.
Practically no one starves. The murder rate is down by crazy numbers. I'm not sure how much of a problem racism was at that time, but you wouldn't have had many chances to meet people from different haplogroups in any case.
The abundance created by industrial society is not distributed "evenly" or "fairly" but the baseline shift is insane.
Yes, now that we have "magic boxes" replacing all of our knowledge workers and experts with inaccurate and half-hallucinated babble, deskilling an entire generation and gaslighting them into parasociality and schizophrenia it's just like Star Trek.
Of course. I was just responding to the parent who was sad that AI isn't turning out to be "the AI of the kind you read as a child 20 years ago." But that was always fantasy sci/fi anyway.
Care to elaborate? Just taking the impact of data centers on locals is enough to validate his point. (Noise pollution, heat pollution and emissions from on-site gas turbines)
This is funny and a pretty clever move, but not actually the argument I'm making. I'm specifically saying you can't make people un-learn math once it turns out to have interesting uses.
That invokes both learning and interest, and the latter can be rolled back. You can't (usually) remove some item from the store of human knowledge, but the humans can lose interest in the item. Interesting uses can cease to be interesting. Fads can pass, you don't know. Don't see the Mandelbrot set around much these days.
OK, but we're talking about people who are "against AI". Are you saying that opposition to AI might help people lose interest in it? I'm not aware of an example of opposition to a useful application of math that caused people to lose interest. It didn't happen with public key encryption, for example. Can you explain further how you see "hating AI" (in the sense of TFA) will cause a loss of interest?
> Don't see the Mandelbrot set around much these days.
Was computing the mandlebrot set ever shown to be broadly and commercially useful in some way?
They have. Even during the congressional hearings on the subject they were talking about and referencing many already fully debunked UAP sighting footage
reply