Bruh the Apple boot licking is really disturbing. I doubt you’d say that you’re lucky to get free Google cloud or Microsoft OneDrive storage. And even they’d give you 10GB. Paying $1000 for a phone and getting only 5GB is weak.

I do think that it should be 5gb per device. 5gb by todays standards is pretty low.

If they were programmed to “enjoy” working then it probably won’t be creative for that we’re telling it what to do.

If they can do "everything a human can do" then it's indistinguishable from humans. Which means that they can't be enslaved and have the same rights as humans.

They're all incredibly repetitive jobs that already treat humans like robots.

Neither have dinosaurs ever been observed.

The laws of physics are the same in the multiverse.

The Many Worlds Interpretation is NOT about "the observer effect". The observer effect is about denying the multiverse.

There's one way to falsify the multiverse: Make an AGI/consciousness running on a quantum computer, and make it experience "quantum consciousness" in the multiverse.

I wouldn’t unless it’s an AGI.

You fundamentally misunderstand how AI and even politics work.

Yes this is nothing new, we don't have AGI and we're still nowhere near close to having an AGI.

An AI at its current state is like a glorified mechanical turk. A bunch of "dumb" people doing menial, mechanical tasks could do the same thing the "AI" is doing. I mean that has to be the case, since AI is run by a bunch of specific-purpose GPUs and not general-purpose CPUs.

So the AI might be able to do things that would take millions of unthinking, automated people doing thousands of hours of mechanical, menial labor. But all it takes is a single creative genius that has the ability to actually invent something new which will revolutionize something. Only an AGI is capable of doing that, and not an "AI".

It just trains the program to look for similarities, and then make the program mash the images together.

For example, you show the program an image of an Apple and label it “Apple”. The program doesn’t “know” that it’s an apple, it just looks for patterns that looks like that image. If you make the program go through thousands of images, then it might have thousands of ways of drawing an apple.

In the same way, you might make the program “learn” a “bear eating”. So if you input “a bear eating an apple”, then you might output an image where it might look like a bear is about to eat an apple.

Obviously, humans are much more flexible than that. All it has to do is learn what an apple and a bear is, and it can draw an infinite pattern of art with those two items. Or it can be a completely new style of art. Fact is, we don’t “learn” how to draw stick figures for example, yet we do. We don’t just imitate reality like the AI does.

We THINK that we’re drawing people when we’re drawing stick figures. They’re our imperfect yet approximate figures of humans. We’re not copying, we’re estimating. That’s what it means by drawing from scratch.

I don't know why we even call them "AI art" when it's really just "rehashing of human-made art".

Depends on what you do with it obviously. Maybe you take a lot of 4K videos.

It’s not predictable because if it were we would have them now.

There's still going to be an inherent limitation set in statistics and probabilities. As in, things don't always follow a "trend" or a "pattern". A trend could suddenly change in unexpected and surprising ways.

It could be that things like predicting the trajectory of a ball falling are based on statistics and probabilities, when we use our "intuition". But we can also think about it that would completely change how we would predict the trajectory. For example, we could learn that the wind could affect the trajectory of the ball. Or as in the case of baseball, the pitcher could be using the "slider" throw to make the ball fall a lot faster than when normally thrown. And a person would never even have to ever see the ball being affected by the wind before to predict this. There were never any statistical samples. He can simply think about how the wind would affect the ball. So he predicted the trajectory not based on statistics, but by some kind of a new rule, perhaps one that closely resembles the laws of physics.

Our general thinking isn't necessarily based on statistics and probabilities. And that's why an AGI can't be developed from statistical and probabilistic methods alone.

I would imagine that the day we can create AGI is when we have figured out how the brain works. This would mean that we can completely control our emotions to our liking.

I don't see how we can't live forever once we figure out how to repair individual cells.

However all of our cells are replaced every 10 years or so. But how could it be possible that we still apparently have the same consciousness?

Because that's what you read on the Internet? Probabilities rely on human-made labels, and can only make a choice between A or B. That's not how human intelligence works because it can come up with an entirely new label, like say a new choice C that's not based on probabilities.

ChatGPT is trained by humans. Which means it's curated and hence regulated by people that work on ChatGPT.

Nobody is pushing AI as long as they’re based on Bayesian networks and probabilities. We’ll never have AGI that way.

It’s about coming up with a solution that has yet to exist. So it’s more than just collecting a bunch of solutions that already exist.

I thought it was Xbox…

Because you've just bought into hype and "AI" is nothing like an AI.