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.

It's like nobody cares to even touch base level understanding of the tools they are using.

Can we stop framing this as if llms have actual intent?

This shouldn't surprise me given how many people think that we have access to the literal word of God, but they don't even read the damned book they base their lives and social directives around.

Or is it that "news" sources intentionally leave out basic details to ramp up the story?

Ignore the note on the page you are using that says info might not be accurate. Blame the chat bot for your unprofessional ineptitude.

You shouldn't even be putting that level of blind trust into human beings, or even Wikipedia without checking sources.

Guess what, when i use bots for info, i ask for the sources, and check the original sources. Really not difficult, and I'm not being paid half as much as the people I keep seeing in these news articles.

Maybe this should make it more obvious how wealth is not accrued due to competence and ability.

Or for having reliable news. I feel like i live in a world controlled by children.

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.

Just seen too many kids abused and crushed because their parents own them, and there is no caring community close enough to help. Id rather have been raised by a supportive parental community. Then again, I was tossed between several people who didn't want the burden, which is the origin of my perspective.

Might just be biased coming from neglect and abuse. Just feel like kids should have access to help outside of their immediate proximity. Also pretty sure I didn't mention any eugenics, but maybe a base education should come with access to your own child property that you are allowed to abuse, as long as its not too noticeable. I think perspectives here will be conflicting.

I feel like we need to design an obligatory habitat for parents. They would hate this idea, but hear me out.

This could allow super efficient distribution of resources specifically to help children, as well as a controlled environment to ensure the parent doesn't spend it on alcohol while neglecting the child.

You could tailor the local net to avoid bad actors from outside, while maintaining a degree of freedom and privacy for the children. Maybe holds parents to some standard of accountability, while providing an obvious escape route for children with abusive parents. A place for children where they don't feel separated from, or lesser than other children due to the circumstances of their birth. Maybe allow a healthier, safer environment.

I would suggest a system that can be regulated and controlled without people putting cameras on the children.

Adults suck. Children should not be forced to endure the hell that adults can create.

Yeah parents wouldn't like it, but very few existing parents provide an actually healthy environment to grow in. Maybe becoming a parent should hold some actual responsibility.

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 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