Nah. That's just boosted intelligence. Superintelligence compared to human intelligence should be like human intelligence compared to animal intelligence. There probably would have to be phase difference between those two assuming intelligence has levels and phase transitions and isn't a completely continous spectrum.

There is no proof that ASI can exist. It is proven that AGI can. AGI is a tangible goal while ASI is not.

Probably another evolution over what we already have or a dead end. Really significant things take off if they are useful.

Honestly, while lvl 5 autonomy would be pretty cool tech wise, it's a solution to a problem caused by cars. It's merely slightly closes the performance gap between them and mixed solution of public transportation and micromobility while not giving us never before seen efficiency. It's like making a coal steam locmotive into electric steam locomotive - it's better than before but direct electric drive beats it anyways.

Is there some kind of competition over who makes a longer list that you need to put unrelated bloat in it? Hype doesn't speed up progress. Deal with it.

>We aren’t there yet. They can’t think.

Moving the goal post. They don't need to think. It's a weird misconception that thinking would make them better. It's inefficient to have them think.

The classical way is to visit sci-hub but it's new paper so it's not there yet. Googling works or doesn't work so it's not guaranteed and I didn't have much success with it in the past.

The real magic trick is writing an email to authors with polite request of a copy. More often than not they will send it.

12ft is for newspaper articles, not for scientific papers.

The biggest disappointment of this article is how it's just a mush of words without any real explanation as to how is it supposed to work while the original paper is obviously behind paywall.

Brother, please go back to my comment and check those damn links and you'll understand the true potential of blockchain.

Here you go - the use cases for blockchain:

• wealth redistribution
• speculative trading
• high risk investing
• online shopping

As you can see blockchain has many interesting practical application and we have yet to see it's full potential.

>Blockchain

Did you mean "inefficient append only database"? No, blockchain is only proving itself once again that it's a solution in search of a problem. It's been 14 years and it's main use cases remain pump and dumps. It ain't going anywhere.

Post your pictures only in place where only your friends can see them or don't post them at all - ask yourself if you need to even post them in the first place. Maybe choose to show your photos to your friends during meetings instead. The only way for a photo to not be usable by some future AI is to turn it into random noise which defeats the purpose of posting it.

> I fear interaction with each man in my life

Paranoia speedrun 101. A creep will get your photo anyways. Projecting your fears on random men will only be detrimental to your mental health and social relations.

Bruh. It literally probably saved me at least several hours of my life by helping me solve different programming and uni physics problems - and it was all for free. It's a silent agreement where I get to use it free of charge while they get nice data from me also free of charge, which will make the model better for me to keep using it. It's literally as good of a deal as it gets.

"merge" is a very vague term. Explain your vision.

Actually diamonds aren't example of indistinguishable real/not real divide. We've started reaching high enough quality of "artificial" diamonds only recently for them to actually become harder and harder to distinguish from "natural" ones. Brands have started to even drop "artificial" label completely. This is what will happen with AI generated content - once a threshold is achivede where we no longer can distinguish the difference almost no one will care anymore about the source.

Except I am not stating a purely personal opinion but rather have read some credible criticism on him before. Also your assesment of my person screams argumentum ad personam steming from own insecurity.

"Breakthrough" = will lead to nothing of importance. I'll believe it when they do human trials. Sinclair's words afaik aren't a reliable source.

Sounds like the thing they will definitely NOT transform are high-performance computers. Energy efficiency isn't what we lack in storage - it's performance and memory density but overwhelmingly the problem is the former. This just sounds like tech for next gen high density hard drives.

Except your brain cannot work faster than it already does.

Explore the galaxy? Have fun in decades long isekai style sessions in deep dive VR? Generaly any "artificial work" we'll be doing because we chose to not because we need to.

Random person who learned ML through online courses will not bring us any closer to AGI. You need PhD for that simply because creating new better architectures requires lots of expertise which you won't have otherwise. You need compute to test out those new architectures which requires loads of money. Chappie is a movie which is supposed to be nice to watch - not some kind of oracle.

Like normal functioning. You cannot make neural signals move faster nor make them more frequent and even if you could it would come at a tremendous energy expenditure at levels which brain could not handle. Memory would almost definitely not be able to keep up. Even increased focus and thinking at normal levels causes your brain to get tired quickly. Assume that brain is doing it's work as best as it can and without fundamental changes in architecture it is at it's limit.

Nope. Brain cannot work faster than it already does.

Running a simulation inside a simulation would be like an OS running a VM. The amount of nesting could be almost infinite.

>It is astonishingly unpopular to actually do the count, and notice that something like Stable Diffusion contains the gist of all of art history and the personal styles of basically all famous artists, thousands of celebrities, the appearance of all sorts of objects, etc., in a model that in a synapse-for-parameter count matches the brain of a cockroach.

I want to call that out for being wrong. SD's phase space contains loads of jibberish and how good an image model is is dictated by how little bad images it's phase space contains, not by how many good ones it does. If your argument was right then RNG would be the best generative image model because the phase space of it's outputs containts every good image.