This is just the list of attendees though. The article talks about responses to survey questions as well which could give insight into how these elites really think.

Definitely. It would make life better in so many ways if everyone did this.

I heard Facebook was funding this in the US. Not sure if they’re responsible for it elsewhere too. It’s basically Five Eyes countries doing this, so you can bet it’s to do with their surveillance efforts. How do we stop it? First step is not to comply. Do not complete any age verification. If you are absolutely forced to, at least lodge complaints about it. If you are still required to, try to avoid giving any data, e.g. use a pre-recorded video of someone else or a videogame character to pass the age check. Second step is to use and support alternative platforms that avoid such measures.

We don’t have a mathematical definition for intelligence or artificial like we do for a Turing machine, but most useful concepts don’t have precise definitions, like human, air, porn, drugs, medicine. I don’t see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence. A lot of robots in sci-fi aren’t superintelligent and they usually have robotic voices and vocabulary choices and sometimes difficulty understanding words that aren’t in the dictionary or answering slightly vague questions, things which LLMs have no trouble with.

Saying the mount Rushmore carvings was formed by erosion is a simple explanation with few assumptions that is possible if you assume erosion happens sufficiently randomly, but it’s an absurd explanation nonetheless. Occam’s razor is just a rule of thumb to apply to competing explanations which are similarly reasonable and even then it’s not telling you which is more likely to be true but which is the simplest model to work with.

Normal computer programs only look intelligent in very narrow areas, like number crunching, which is why we don’t tend to call them intelligent. Their general intelligence is next to zero. Even if we were delusional enough to think life came from non-life and developed intelligence by random chance and natural selection, you have the same thing there where you get much more non-intelligent output than intelligent output. Monkeys on typewriters could also look intelligent some of the time, but looking at the totality of output they wouldn’t.

It’s just an expression of plain old human intelligence

All artificial things are expressions of human behaviors. That’s kind of the definition of artificial.

Intelligence is a description of capability, not the means by which the capability is achieved. So if the output looks intelligent then the process is intelligent regardless of how it works. The difference between natural and artificial intelligence is how the intelligence is achieved - what you’re describing doesn’t match any intelligence found in nature so if it produces intelligent output then it’s artificially intelligent.

Statistically likely to…what? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Welcome to the resistance

Yes, we have had AutoGPT for 3 years now

Consciousness is separate from intelligence and I never brought it up.

10 years is not a long time.

And those natural resources are used for what? Smartphones that addict and cause depression. Flock cameras that watch you and report to Palantir. Data centers that are used for AI propaganda and disinformation campaigns to manipulate our views. Chemicals that poison our crops and end up in our water sources. Modern industry is mostly bad for humanity.

It’s funny that this is posted in “A Boring Dystopia” and “Positive News”. What looks positive with narrow vision is often dystopian when taken to its conclusion.

No but it was a warning, just like 1984 or most sci-fi about AI

That’s just denial of reality. AI comes up with new ways of “thinking” like in the math example I cited. If you call that remixing existing ideas then that could describe what all humans do and it’s questionable if any of us are creative.

LLM output is often indistinguishable from genuine creativity. You can give it an open ended prompt like “illustrate how the world is from the perspective of an LLM” and probably get something nobody has ever seen or thought of before. People use LLMs for generating ideas as well as coming up with novel solutions like I posted. Saying it’s not creative is mysticist cope.

This meme implies that AI data centers have been around for a long time. They have not. And it’s not really the number of data centers that matters it’s the techniques that AIs use.

It’s fallacious to say that because they don’t “think” that they can’t behave exactly the same as thinking things would, including the appearance of self-awareness and taking over the world.

I don’t know what you mean by current iteration but what I do know is that general-purpose LLMs can already beat the very best of human intelligence some of the time (recent examples). So it won’t take very long for a few more breakthroughs to be made which will enable general-purpose AIs (LLMs, other neural networks, or something else entirely) to beat human intelligence most of the time, and then 90% of the time, then 99.9999% of the time. AI is already doing a lot of the coding to make AI and it could discover better alternatives to LLMs.

Exactly