- AI Revolution 101 I created a summary of this topic on Medium
- Everything is information ultimately. We are biological machines built out of tiny code. Our DNA is just information. If you have a brilliant brain that is great at processing information you have a complete control of the reality. You can control over atoms. Only what you need is a tiny atomic printer. We have those, those are cells. If the boundary is information there is no boundary between technology and real world. We are creating something that has a massive ability to affect the real world. – on Lex FridmanAella
- For example, we tried to teach AI organisms in a simulation to jump, but we did it by teaching them to measure how far their “feet” rose above the ground. Instead of jumping, they learned to grow into tall vertical poles and do flips — they excelled at what we were measuring, but they didn’t do what we wanted them to do.
Katja Grace survey: A ~20% probability of this sort of AI by 2036; a ~50% probability by 2060; a ~70% probability by 2100. These match the figures I give in the introduction.
Holden: think there's more than a 10% chance we'll see something PASTA-like enough to qualify as "transformative AI" within 15 years (by 2036); a ~50% chance we'll see it within 40 years (by 2060); and a ~2/3 chance we'll see it this century (by 2100).
This is the self-generated text from a short prompt by Open AI GP2 algorithm. More on this here https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/
Recycling is NOT good for the world. It is bad for the environment, it is bad for our health, and it is bad for our economy. I’m not kidding. Recycling is not good for the environment. It is destructive to the earth and it is a major contributor to global warming. Recycling is not good for our health. It contributes to obesity and diseases like heart disease and cancer. Recycling is bad for our economy. It increases the cost of a product, and in turn, the price of everything that is made with that product. Recycling is not good for our nation. We pay a tremendous price for the privilege of having the world’s most advanced and efficient recycling system. Recycling is a huge, colossal waste of time, energy, money, and resources.”
Argument for AIs will be concious
According to the PhilPapers Surveys, 56.5% of philosophers endorse physicalism, vs. 27.1% who endorse non-physicalism and 16.4% "other." I expect the vast majority of philosophers who endorse physicalism to agree that a sufficiently detailed simulation of a human would be conscious. (My understanding is that biological naturalism is a fringe/unpopular position, and that physicalism + rejecting biological naturalism would imply believing that sufficiently detailed simulations of humans would be conscious.) I also expect that some philosophers who don't endorse physicalism would still believe that such simulations would be conscious (David Chalmers is an example - see The Conscious Mind). These expectations are just based on my impressions of the field. –