The tools exist, so let’s try to figure out as humans the best way to use them to promote humanity, and let’s advocate against ways of using them which are a detriment to humanity, which is exactly the charge the letter makes. There are cultural norms around the use of every technology.
replyLet's figure out how to use the iron fist of the state to keep people from doing things the math establishment doesn't like?
replyYeah, that's really great for humanity. Just super.
An obvious misrepresentation of the letter and my comment. For what purpose, I don’t know.
replyI'd like to hear how your comment isn't irrelevant noise, then. How does one implement these grand ideas except by state action? Otherwise, people will do what people will do, including proving theorems by machine.
replyWell I think in response to 'what are you going to do', what people are probably going to do is stop sharing on-going work, stop bothering to curate problems that are just going to inflate someone's IPO valuation, basically accelerating the tragedy of the commons that the AI companies are driving.
replySeems legit. I speculate their are emergent mechanisms for the development of memory that are not dependent on what ever mechanism is behind the "improve $model for 'everyone'"*
replyIs someone knowlegeable on research that engages the question on the development of something that could be considered as some emergent mechanism of memory, that is independent of instances and their contextwindow an specifically also independent of the use of conversations for trainingsdata?
*(This is regarding the value of selfhosted models - maybe small selforganisations that share ressources to do though to do so? Generally the value of machine learning seems to be to big to reject)