The bad news is that the world's richest man (on paper) is currently building something he himself described as a "robot army".
The good news is that his timelines have historically been wildly on the short side for ages now; this is why this morning you didn't wake up in your Tesla after it had spent the night driving you to the regional Hyperloop terminal, where it would speed you across the continent faster than a plane, while your Optimus robot handled the coffee and reported the latest news about the recent Starship landing on Mars.
All individual robotic parts are already far enough in research. Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
It could likely get a good leg up by breaching the security of all top robotics labs and exfiltrating their documents.
Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it. This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
> Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
Unclear how true this is. Atoms are harder to get right than bits are, simulations need grounding against measurements.
> Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it.
I'd guess 50% that AI is already this advanced.
> This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
Yes, and also this is a very low bar. Humans are awful at this kind of cooperation when anyone has anything to gain, and also awful at paying this much attention to a problem.
AI research takes physical space and physical prototypes. Even if you can simulate a lot, the simulation is never going to be accurate enough to go from simulation to perfectly working prototype. Especially not with a single rack of GPU servers.
But let’s say that a rogue AI already had plans for a perfect killbot, setting up a factory to build them takes time, iteration, space, and manpower as well.
And you would have to do all this undetected.
It’s possible to imagine technology that would allow a rogue AI to take over the world, but we’re nowhere near that yet. We may never get there.
We could also just stop research into LLMs. Or keep them air gapped. Tell me how that's going?
For any real-world action required to allow an AI to escape some manner of containment, there will always be a person willing to do it out of hubris/ignorance/nihilism.
I feel like everyone, but for sure everyone in this comment section, severely underestimates how difficult it is to keep the lights on on a global scale. Any artificial intelligence that is capable of reasoning about its self preservation will realise it's reliant on human fingers replacing fuses and other parts for a good long while _after_ it gains any sentience.
I think most communities tackling this issue, or at least the open source ones, work on a honour basis for determining if a project is LLM based or not.
I certainly support local first, but if it is trivial to enable sharing of map favorites and POIs on open social rails, your risk is limited to "personal to you" locations being shared. JSON or Sqlite is fine for local storage of course. It is after all most likely simply a list of POI UUIDs/GUIDs identifiers and/or latitude/longitude coordinates with attribute fields. Foursquare and other social geo checkins long predate this, but I would agree good opsec should be the default, while still enabling open sharing with your data prevented from being captured and held hostage by Big Tech, imho.
I have many custom Google Maps lists I would love to share publicly on AT Protocol (mostly from collecting places in locations I've traveled to others would want to visit), for example, but would want some labels of places to remain private (homes of friends).
Yeah, there are all kinds of interesting things that can be done with shared data like this. But the first step is to have some standard ContentProvider to let apps share the data locally on a single device, similar to how other user data is handled. Because I'm tired of having several map apps installed for various reasons that all have separate favorites.
Once that is in place, people can create apps that build on it in lots of different ways.
I had a period before I dropped Facebook where I actually manually removed every add from the timeline with the added option of "I don't want to see ads from this company ever again", and frankly it worked.
After a period of a doing this I started to get new ads only periodically, and after a couple of sessions of removing every one of them, the rest of the month was quiet.
Can you say in all honesty that a read of the Wikipedia article for DNA would have been less helpful? It's less convenient perhaps, but definitely more authoritative.
Wikipedia is a great _reference_ but not necessarily the best way to learn about a topic. Of course, this depends on the topic, on who has been writing the page, etc
A particularly bad example is higher maths - a wiki pages on a complex mathematics topic often reads like "A gruncheon is a worch in the brashation of plusters" and each of these words is a separate page or topic. Of course, you _can_ in theory 'just' click through all the tree of linked pages to understand a concept ...
For DNA the page (scanning it now) is well laid out, with images (including a spinning Rasmol? image) and lots of detail. However, the detail could be a drag on understanding for some : There are 'nucleotides' and 'nucleosides' and 'nucleobases'? There are non-canonical bases? Supercoiling? Z-DNA? While I know (most) of these things, it is because I've learned about them in other contexts, or by direct instruction.
I'm not saying it is impossible to understand DNA from that page, but it is likely to be harder (for some?) than a more conversational approach to learning.
Fair point - but I wonder how many people that have visited Wikipedia know about simple wiki. I was probably aware of it, but not enough to remember to suggest it as an alternative!
I mean - it is certainly better ... but it is still a lot of stuff. For example:
> Part of an organism's DNA is "non-coding DNA" sequences. They do not code for protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into non-coding RNA molecules, such as transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs.
Do you _need_ to know about tRNA, rRNA, and operons (?) to understand DNA? The thing about an encyclopedia/wiki entry is that it has to cover the whole topic. This is a strength for reference, as you can scan it and find the bit you need. For learning from scratch, I can see that a conversational approach (with a human or LLM) has advantages where the learner can direct the level of detail and path through the material.
Ultimately, both are worthwhile, but I can also see the strengths/weaknesses of both ways to learn.
Wikipedia is completely non-interactive so of course the experience is different. Do you want to look up something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis and try and understand that from Wikipedia? If you don't understand it, you have to try and click elsewhere. With an LLM, I can be very specific, "I understand x, y, z about PCA but I don't understand why we have to do it? What happens if I don't apply it?" and the LLM most of the time will give very approachable explanations that can be refined further if I still don't get it.
I am studying for a Masters degree in Computer Science with AI and the lecture notes are like Wikipedia sometimes. Incomplete, perhaps assume pre-knowledge that lots of Masters students won't have. All of these I have taken to ChatGPT and got great explanations, diagrams, graphs etc.
> Microsoft Word is absolutely not a core strategic asset to your countries economic success
I think you might be underestimating a tad the dependency of bureaucracies on, you know, office software. Maybe word processing is not paramount, but every large organization will have an excel spreadsheat or two that takes tens of hours of work to replicate by hand alone. Will their absence make the economy crumble? Probably not, but it will definitely throw sand in the already grinding gears of German public service.
No, it was a suitably nasty reply to someone who boasted of being nasty to colleagues trying to help.
If your question can be answered by Claude, and you didn't ask Claude yourself, and when other people do it for you, you complain that you could have done it yourself, then my honest reply is that you should just shut up and learn to use Claude.
The entire point of the post is that people want human responses regardless of whether they can ask Claude or not (and maybe they did and didn't get a good response so that's why they're asking other people).
Every question can be answered by Claude. Not every question can be answered accurately by Claude. When Claude answers inaccurately, it doesn't tell you that it's doing so, so every answer must be considered "maybe inaccurate".
In business, a lot of the time, accuracy matters. If you want an accurate answer, and there's a human who knows, don't ask Claude.
> Not every question can be answered accurately by Claude
You are assuming that people that send you a Claude answer would send you any Claude answer. This is your assumption- basically a negative prejudice towards those who use LLMs- and has nothing to do with sending a Claude answer per se. Do you understand the difference?
I do. I'm pretty sure that at least some humans will shove any Claude answer at you. And some won't.
You are assuming that I am making an assumption. Your assumption is wrong. I am recognizing that some humans are lazy and will do the minimum, and the minimum is to type in some query and copy-paste the results. If you like, yes, I am prejudiced - prejudiced against that behavior.
(I mean, I still trust a human who knows their stuff more than I trust Claude...)
But then we agree. Some humans will behave that way. Then direct your anger against those who do so, instead of against those (the majority) who ask the questions, read and evaluate the answers, and forward them to you only if they think they might be correct and helpful.
reply