I’m an AI enthusiast, but id be the first to say that whoever greenlights a system with such obvious bias issues for something so important should be sacked. Although, before AI, cops just use bullshit mindreading tactics that basically boil down to “harass anyone who doesn’t act within your cultural and neurotypical norms” while encouraging them to influence their own perceptions with any personal or local biases. I.E. Cops are borked and need reshaping.
I see intelligence as filling areas of concept space within an econiche in a way that proves functional for actions within that space. I think we are discovering more that “nature” has little commitment, and is just optimizing preparedness for expected levels of entropy within the functional eco-niche.
Most people haven’t even started paying attention to distributed systems building shared enactive models, but they are already capable of things that should be considered groundbreaking considering the time and finances of development.
That being said, localized narrow generative models are just building large individual models of predictive process that doesn’t by default actively update information.
People who attack AI for just being prediction machines really need to look into predictive processing, or learn how much we organics just guess and confabulate ontop of vestigial social priors.
But no, corpos are using it so computer bad human good, even though the main issue here is the humans that have unlimited power and are encouraged into bad actions due to flawed social posturing systems and the confabulating of wealth with competency.
Possibly one of my favourites to date. Absolutely love it.
While I agree about the conflict of interest, I would largely say the same thing despite no such conflict of interest. However I see intelligence as a modular and many dimensional concept. If it scales as anticipated, it will still need to be organized into different forms of informational or computational flow for anything resembling an actively intelligent system.
On that note, the recent developments with active inference like RXinfer are astonishing given the current level of attention being paid. Seeing how llms are being treated, I’m almost glad it’s not being absorbed into the hype and hate cycle.
Upvote for using censorship. Been seeing worse things left uncensored in ai channels and it’s put me off my coffee before. Wonder if having more detailed censored indicators would prevent some of the downvotes, but you have my thanks.
As always, the problem is our economic system that has funneled every gain and advance to the benefit of the few. The speed of this change will make it impossible to ignore the need for a new system. If it wasn’t for AI, we would just boil the frog like always. But let’s remember the real issue.
If a free food generating machine is seen as evil for taking jobs, the free food machine wouldn’t be the issue. Stop protesting AI, start protesting affluent society. We would still be suffering under them even if we had destroyed the loom.
All oil profits will be taxed extra until it has paid off what it took from the people, right? Were not just taking from the people for the exclusive benefit of large companies right? I’m still confused as to why this was publically funded. Or at least confused to why I haven’t seen the guaranteed public value addressed. No trickle down isn’t a real public benefit.
I’m talking about the general strides in cognitive computing and predictive processing.
https://youtu.be/A1Ghrd7NBtk?si=iaPVuRjtnVEA2mqw
Machine learning is still impressive, we just can better frame the limitations now.
For the note on scale and ecosystems, review recent work by karl friston or Michael Levin.
Perhaps instead we could just restructure our epistemically confabulated reality in a way that doesn’t inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict due to diverging models that haven’t grown the necessary priors to peacefully allow comprehension and the ability exist simultaneously.
breath
We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem. Subconsciously enacted social systems included.
We’re seeing developments that make me extremely optimistic, even if everything else is currently on fire. We just need a few more years without self focused turds blowing up the world.
AI or no AI, the solution needs to be social restructuring. People underestimate the amount society can actively change, because the current system is a self sustaining set of bubbles that have naturally grown resilient to perturbations.
The few people who actually care to solve the world’s problems are figuring out how our current systems inevitably fail, and how to avoid these outcomes.
However, the best bet for restructuring would be a distributed intelligent agent system. I could get into recent papers on confirmation bias, and the confabulatory nature of thought, on the personal level, group level, and society level.
Turns out we are too good at going with the flow, even when the structure we are standing on is built over highly entrenched vestigial confabulations that no longer help.
Words, concepts, and meanings change heavily depending on the model interpreting them. The more divergent, the more difficulty in bridging this communication gap.
a distributed intelligent system could not only enable a complete social restructuring with autonomy and altruism both guaranteed, but with an overarching connection between the different models at every scale, capable of properly interpreting the different views, and conveying them more accurately than we could have ever managed with model projection and the empathy barrier.
Yeah I’m going to have to leave this sub if this shit keeps ending up in my feed while I’m eating or in public.
The main issue though is the economic system, not the technology.
My hope is that it shakes things up fast enough that they can’t boil the frog, and something actually changes.
Having capable AI is a more blatantly valid excuse to demand a change in economic balance and redistribution. The only alternative would be destroy all technology and return to monkey. Id rather we just fix the system so that technological advancements don’t seem negative because the wealthy have already hoarded all new gains of every new technology for this past handful of decades.
Such power is discretely weaponized through propaganda, influencing, and economic reorganizing to ensure the equilibrium stays until the world is burned to ash, in sacrifice to the lifestyle of the confidently selfish.
I mean, we could have just rejected the loom. I don’t think we’d actually be better off, but I believe some of the technological gain should have been less hoardable by existing elite. Almost like they used wealth to prevent any gains from slipping away to the poor. Fixing the issue before it was this bad was the proper answer. Now people don’t even want to consider that option, or say it’s too difficult so we should just destroy the loom.
There is a markov blanket around the perpetuating lifestyle of modern aristocrats, obviously capable of surviving every perturbation. every gain as a society has made that reality more true entirely due to the direction of where new power is distributed. People are afraid of AI turning into a paperclip maximizer, but that’s already what happened to our abstracted social reality. Maximums being maximized and minimums being minimized in the complex chaotic system of billions of people leads to inevitable increase of accumulation of power and wealth wherever it has already been gathered. Unless we can dissolve the political and social barrier maintaining this trend, it we will be stuck with our suffering regardless of whether we develop new technology or don’t.
Although doesn’t really matter where you are or what system you’re in right now. Odds are there is a set of rich asshole’s working as hard as possible to see you are kept from any piece of the pie that would destabilize the status quo.
I’m hoping AI is drastic enough that the actual problem isn’t ignored.
deleted by creator
“The surprising thing we find is that, essentially, you can use the largest model to help you automatically design the smaller ones”
Hey, how do we get a clickbait title out of this?
I definitely agree that copyright is a good half century in need of an update. Disney company and other contemporaries should never have been allowed the dominance and extension of copywrite that allows what feels like ownership of most global artistic output. They don’t need AI, they have the money and interns to create whatever boardroom adjusted art they need to continue their dominance.
Honestly I think the faster AI happens, the more likely it is that we find a way out of the social and economical hierarchical structure that feels one step from anarcho-capitalistic aristocracy.
I just hope we can find the change without riots.
And you violate copyright when you think about copywritten things alone at night.
I violate copyright when i draw Mario and don’t sell it to anybody.
Or these are dumb stretches of what copyright is and how it should be applied.
the reasoning in this article is dumb and all over the place.
Seems like gary marcus being gary marcus.
Already seen openAI calling out some of the bullshit specifically noted in this. That doesn’t matter though, damage is done and people WANT to believe ai is terrible in every way.
Everyone is just deadfast determined to climb onto the gary marcus unreasonable AI hate train no matter what.
God I want some large projects by independent teams. It’s impossible to do anything without a sponsor, but this might be what we need for smaller groups to create wonderful complex works of art, instead of cookiecutter boardroom content machines that currently flood almost all available commercial artistic spaces.
Can’t wait to see how the tech develops. It’s be curious to do VR experience recreations of my dreams through AI dictation.
Modelling, rigging, animation and the like are all coming. Imagine walking around a world being crafted and changed as you describe each element to be exactly what you are looking for.
I think it would capture more artist intent than the unnecessary interface of archaic tools that create an artificial interface and challenge between you and your vision.
Especially if you’ve damaged your digits, or otherwise lack digital dexterity.
But change scares people. Especially ones who have put in effort to conform to the current economic system corporate art creators.
That’s already the system outside of creating what rich people want. An entire team of artists creating boardroom directed art is much less art to me than a single creative using AI to bring their personal vision to life.
Hopefully individual artists can do more with these tools, and we can all hope for a world where artists can be supported to have the ability and freedom to create apart from the whims of the wealthy.
Starving artist is a term for a reason. Technology has never been the real problem.
Wouldn’t put it past bezos for being responsible for the megastructure
Big. Fan of ai stuff. Not a fan of this. This definitely won’t have issues with minority populations and neurodivergents falling outside of distribution and causing false positives that enable more harassment of people who already get unfairly harassed.
Let this die with the mind reading tactics they spawned from.