Not what we were even talking about dude. Especially when you shifted the conversationto begin with... We were talking about the 1% of people who theoretically could have their life extended, but still would require a substantial series of effects for that to occur. Is that worth the suffering of the other 99% of people?

Something possibly being better for 1% of the population does not make up for the suffering of 99%.

It has. It has also caused irreparable harm. It has changed societies and social conventions and behaviors. In the past, technological change was observable over a generational time period. That generational time scale of major technical change is now being condensed to a period of less than a year. People had time to adjust in the past, and yet segments of society still found it hard to. People won't have that luxury anymore, as the pace of change will reorganize the social fabric faster than we can conceive.

That's probably true. They already ask for your piss.

The vast majority of people don't like change, especially massive change and I'm pretty sure that's been psychologically proven.

ChatGPT and Bing have been in the airwaves, but it's just sort of an out there news story that people don't really understand and will probably fade into the background shortly. People don't really pay attention until it affects them personally. Which for a lot of people, it won't be until they're asked to pack up their desk and leave their job that is now automated. As for who's prepared, I don't think anyone is. I don't think anyone on this sub really knows what will happen or what the implications will end up being both societally and personally.

Nope, I'm pretty much the opposite of this. I think the path to singularity is going to be overwhelmingly negative, and I think it's going to be negative in my personal life as well. Just when I thought I understood and might be capable of conquering the contemporary world, AI is on pace to upend everything.

It's not plagiarism. Novelty and plagiarism are two separate concepts.

I'd really like to see more realistic ground (contact) physics with different textures and terrains. Someone might walk differently in a desert environments vs a forest environment vs a snow environment for example. If there's debris on the ground such as small rocks or other debris it may cause the character to adjust foot contact to compensate. Sloping features could also be incorporated and modeled. Walking is a big thing but vehicle movement in these environments is also something that can be drastically improved upon.

I agree and I've always thought this. And think about the self selection of people who would want to go to great lengths to augment their intelligence in the first place. I'd be more afraid of a power hungry individual like that than I am of AI. I think it would be easier to align an AI to the goals of general society than it would be an augmented human.

Not necessarily, and at least you can ensure higher quality discussion. Places like this with high member count inevitably get inundated with pop sci bs, politics, or irrelevant personal experiences. That's what has happened to the science, physics, and economics subs.

Lol sure.

Very little of it is.

Let's not act like 2 million people signed up for this sub as anything other than machine learning being a buzzword. Pretty much every other sub dedicated to academic discourse has far fewer subscribers.

ChatGPT is the biggest news story to come out of AI since probably Siri. Those items are all things ChatGPT/Bing fall under.

These posts suck. And I'm talking about yours, not posts about ChatGPT.

Such a stupid way to nerf it. Don't do anything about the actual problem but put a bandaid over one of the symptoms. My use case for it is productivity and research and the reply limit effectively kills any use I have for it.

I want Bing to be a search engine. Sydney can be some spinoff project, but I really don't have much interest in it at this point.

You still have to think of economies of scale, performance, flexibility, etc. High quality drones are still far from being produced in the numbers necessary to hit scale economies, and until that happens, optionally manned aircraft will be the way to go.

Interesting, yes I'm interested in the latter portion of what these things can do with making people more productive. Do you have any specific examples?

No, not really. They're already automating the blackhawk helicopter, it seems to be a matter of budgets and priorities.

Economies of scale, and the problems to solve performance issues while having a cockpit are basically already solved. Removing the cockpit will do little to nothing to improve performance. And if a major war breaks out, you have an asset that can be immediately manned if need be. There's lots of reasons why you'd want to do it this way.

Attack helicopters should be candidate #1 to go unmanned. They are effectively useless in a high density environment, but incredibly valuable in low density environments. Going unmanned could make them an order of magnitude more effective.

Disappointing to say the least, but I suspect the hallucination problem will be fixed very soon, either through better overall models or specific methods to fix it.

99% of people aren't even paying attention. Of the 1% who are, a majority of them are in denial of the transformations ahead. We're all in for the wildest ride in history.