upvote

points

by digitaltrees22 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby zeroonetwothree22 hours ago|
next
[-]
What does "win" mean? There is no prize for this, and having someone discover a proof benefits us all.
reply
upvoteby vuurmot22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The prize is a tenure for the researcher, and in OpenAI's case, a higher valuation when they IPO?

In this case, the tenure is gone, and OpenAI has increased their valuation

reply
upvoteby digitaltrees19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Win means being able to monetize the intelligence they have created by exploiting the past present and future collective intelligence of humanity to amass wealth and power without regard for the debt they owe
reply
upvoteby breezybottom22 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Sure there is. A job, tenure, professional respect, Fields medal.
reply
upvoteby fnordpiglet22 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Disqualifying for what? If you develop a proof you aren’t competing for something, you’re expanding the frontier of knowledge. It’s a binary state of the world, either it’s proven or not. Prevail and win what exactly?
reply
upvoteby digitaltrees19 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Disqualifying for participation in civil society and the social contract. Why do they get to participate in and receive economic benefits, be shielded from liability, and effectuate their will to amass more power and influence such as monopolization of computer, training data, capital other resources. I have multiple founder friends that have been told firms are allocating less capital because they are reserving it for the OpenAI and anthropic IPOs.
reply
upvoteby andriy_koval5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Disqualifying for participation in civil society and the social contract.

US/world deviate more and more from social contracts. Money matters way more, and OpenAI wins here.

reply
upvoteby IsTom14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The use of supposed little ways multiple people pushed the envelope in their sessions with no attribution whatsoever.
reply
upvoteby AIblemblio13 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Its a capitalistic issue, not a company/technology issue.

If we would have discovered this breakthrough of LLM/ML on scale in a non capitalistic world, we would all work together advancing it faster than it goes right now for the benefit of humanity.

And I don't live forever (at least for now) i def want to see were this road is heading.

Its a conflict of interest for sure, a cnflict of the future of a lot of humans

reply
upvoteby permalaise77111 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There's that great Ted Chiang quote: "Most of our fears about technology are better understood as fears about capitalism."

I am always looking for leftist writing imagining a positive vision for AI. Is there any which you'd recommend?

reply
upvoteby nl9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
By leftist do you mean progressive or left wing economically?

There's quite a lot of progressive positive writing.

On the economic side the Australian Council of Trade Unions statement is about a positive future: https://www.actu.org.au/speeches-and-opinion/joint-statement...

reply
upvoteby digitaltrees10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I hear you and would have what would probably feel like pedantic push back (we are not in capitalism as much as the unchecked end result of unregulated capitalism that becomes monopolistic corporatism), but it’s hard for me to see how this would be different in mercantilism, feudalism, or even communism as the human tendency to seek and hoard resources is universal for some fraction of people so as long as that confers an advantage then AI would be used by the designers in antisocial self enrichment.

I’d love to hear more thought experiments if you have some so my failure of imagination or lack of awareness can be overcome.

reply
upvoteby AIblemblio9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
My personal system would be based on resource points: Define the amount of resources our planet has in a sustainable fashion, everyone gets the same and can use them how they like.

Technocracy had this already in form of Energy accounting.

Unfortunate something like communism sounds similar and just because we have seen that it didn't work due to technology issues (planning ahead without necessary information is hard?) and no gain of function which would push people, the basic idea is similiar to energy accounting.

Another thing this system needs might be a way for the system to protect itself.

I do think so that a society as diverse as ours will continue struggling with this as long as we do not give abundance resources to everyone or educate/indoctrinate people the 'right' way.

One thought I have regarding AI: IF it happens to slow, people will get used to the status quo and inequality and we will see a future of a handful rich people and a lot more poor people. IF it happens too fast, people might be more desprate to standup and demand something better.

reply