This could simply mean that the largest chain stores have gotten much larger, driving the small boutique stores to shrink, while the mid-size stores vanish.
Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
Cyberthal commented on The average store size in the US is the smallest it's been in at least 17 years wsj.com/real-estate/comme... · Posted by u/lxm
The black man is a shadow being or dipped in paint. The Black man is ethnically sub-Saharan. The white man is a ghost. The White man is ethnically European.
Blacks are the most eager to capitalize the B in Black. Are you calling them racist?
Cyberthal commented on AI is just someone else's intelligence zdziarski.com/blog/?p=120... · Posted by u/jzdziarski
I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind).
I'd like to propose a counterargument:
Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious, but rather just a biological machine. Humans are conscious.
Deduction: Somewhere along the line between the primordial single-cell organism and a human being, there was a transition from non-consciousness to consciousness, and the only [*] factor in that transition was the complexity of the nervous system.
Conclusion: Consciousness (or, "real" intelligence) arises from the complexity of a machine. AI can, in principle, become conscious.
Yes, we know how AI works, because we built it. But why would that make consciousness arising from a sufficiently-complex statistical model impossible?
[*] as per apendleton's comment, I have made mistake here: complexity is not the only factor, but is a necessary one in creation of consciousness.
> The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious
There's the faulty assumption. We assume that high-intensity human consciousness is the only kind, despite abundant animal evidence to the contrary. The more reasonable assumption is that dead matter is also conscious, below a currently detectable threshold.
I have been using ChatGPT pretty consistently for various summarization type of tasks for a bit.
But this weekend I tried using it to learn a technical concept I've struggled with. Previously, I could have spoken about the topic intelligently, but could not have put it to any practical use.
In a few quick prompts and < 1 hr of synthesis, I was able to get to practical knowledge to understand it enough to try and build something from scratch. And building something in another 2-3 hours.
I think this would have taken me 1-2 months of dedicate hitting my head on the wall time to learn previously.
In that moment, I had a realization similar to the author.
Basic flow of the prompt went something like:
1. Tell me about this thing that's part of the concept that I don't understand?
2. Explain this new term you threw at me? Do it in the context on an industry I understand well.
3. Explain yet another concept you mentioned in the same industry concept?
4. This sounds a lot like this other concept I know. How do these differ in practical use?
5. Write me some sample code in a language I understand very well, that does X use case the you mentioned?
6. What are these other concepts you used?
7. How can I do this new concept to do something I've implemented before.
Bullshido blitzkrieg
> Either AI has never been invented yet, in which case we will doom our galaxy. This is improbable, given our position and time in the galaxy.
Why is that improbable? We have no real idea what is the probability of life starting on a planet, much less evolving to our current level. If that probability is sufficiently low, we being the first species in our galaxy to reach that level would not be improbable at all. Since we don't know what that probability actually is, we can't know that it is improbable.
If the fossil record showed that life were a sickly invalid, perhaps. However, it shows the opposite: life is irrepressible, dynamic, and endlessly adaptable. There is no evidence of Earth languishing sterile for eons before getting lucky with abiogenesis.
Instead we find signs of life on Mars, such as a face next to a vitruvian pyramid. This indicates that life did not start on Earth due to its unique Moon, but that the Moon was parked in a precise orbit by unknown earthly life. Abundant terrestrial indicators corroborate this hypothesis, forming a pattern of covert interference.
The correct threat assessment on AI, therefore, is that it is too vulnerable to hostile non-human manipulation to be trusted with strategic WMDs.
It is an acceleration of the problem inherently posed by WMDs: Achieve international peace or we will all perish together. Why wouldn't the galaxy let such things play out? Nobody wants another warlike species bursting into their neighborhood.
Cyberthal commented on What broke Sweden? Real estate bust exposes big divide bloomberg.com/news/featur... · Posted by u/SirLJ
If there's not enough housing, just import immigrants to build more.
It is perfectly correct to anticipate that military AI is a primary existential threat to humanity.
Either AI has never been invented yet, in which case we will doom our galaxy. This is improbable, given our position and time in the galaxy.
Or AI has been invented, there are other species, and they're largely invisible for some reason. One reason could be that their own AI killed them.
Or we could be under some kind of quarantine for primitive cultures, in which case placing our weapons under AI control would render it trivial for a hostile external actor to exterminate us using our own AI as a proxy.
The fact is that if you don't believe in a higher spiritual reality, then AI is very scary. It is the logical next stage of evolution, and RNA world did not fare well in the transition to DNA world.
Dead Comment