←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.415s | source
Show context
yapyap ◴[] No.42947816[source]
> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster.

This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost the same, their brain is mental bridging the concepts and saying it’s only a matter of time.

To me, that’s stupid. I observe the more populist and socially appealing CEOs of these VC startups (Sam Altman being the biggest, of course.) just straight up lying to the masses, for financial gain, of course.

Real AI, artificial intelligence, is a fever dream. This is machine learning except the machines are bigger than ever before. There is no intellect.

and the enthusiasm of these people that are into it feeds into those who aren’t aware of it in the slightest, they see you can chat with a ‘robot’, they hear all this hype from their peers and they buy into it. We are social creatures after all.

I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid, wasteful and very, very insecure.

Hell, if you really care about being ahead, pour 500 billion dollars into quantum computing so u can try to break current encryption. That’ll get you so much further than this nonsensical bs.

replies(17): >>42947884 #>>42947936 #>>42947969 #>>42948058 #>>42948088 #>>42948174 #>>42948256 #>>42948288 #>>42948303 #>>42948370 #>>42948454 #>>42948458 #>>42948594 #>>42948604 #>>42948615 #>>42948820 #>>42949189 #
mrshadowgoose ◴[] No.42948256[source]
> They think it’s the end all be all for everything.

Is (human-based) general intelligence not one of the fundamental enabling elements of literally every human activity throughout history, regardless of how many layers of automation and technology one has to peel back to get to it?

Can you maybe imagine how the ability to create arbitrary amounts of general intelligence, completely divorced from the normal lengthy biological process, could upend that foundation of human activity?

> They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost the same, their brain is mental bridging the concepts and saying it’s only a matter of time.

I've found that most AI-related movies exclusively focus on "quality ASI" scenarios, which are mostly irrelevant to our current state of the world, as an immense amount of danger/value/disruption will arrive with AGI. People who are seriously reasoning about the impacts of AGI are not using movies as references. "Those stupid movie watching idiots" is just a crutch you are using to avoid thinking about something that you disagree with.

> Real AI, artificial intelligence, is a fever dream. This is machine learning except the machines are bigger than ever before. There is no intellect.

Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion? And does it even matter? If "fake intellect" can replace a human, that human still has to deal with the very real issue or not having a job anymore. If "fake intellect" is used to conduct mass surveillance, and direct suppression activities towards divergent individuals, those individuals are still going to have a bad time.

replies(1): >>42948806 #
1. gessha ◴[] No.42948806[source]
>> Real AI, artificial intelligence, is a fever dream. This is machine learning except the machines are bigger than ever before. There is no intellect.

> Do you have any evidence to support this conclusion? And does it even matter? If "fake intellect" can replace a human, that human still has to deal with the very real issue or not having a job anymore. If "fake intellect" is used to conduct mass surveillance, and direct suppression activities towards divergent individuals, those individuals are still going to have a bad time.

I think the "fake intelligence can replace a human" needs more support in general. We know how human intellect works practically (not theoretically) and we know how to apply it in different scenarios. We're still far from knowing how "fake intelligence" works and how to apply it to different scenarios.

replies(1): >>42949687 #
2. ◴[] No.42949687[source]