• give someone bad information in an unfamiliar shape and they won’t immediately get upset, because they can’t immediately see that it’s bad

        yet more obscurantist sleight of mouth by one of the ranking world liars

      • Altman is certainly aware of what it takes to be a Jobs-like marketing personality (and probably holds Hubbard-like totalism as a not-so-secret ambition), he’s just not, uh, very good at it. He’s put the most effort into the strictly lower-case, faux-casual persona on Twitter to seem “approachable” in a social media context, and that doesn’t help him at all when trying to actually appear serious.

        I also don’t doubt that he’s beginning to succumb to the yes-man filter bubble that traps so many public personalities. That’s surely made worse by the likelihood that any underlings he might have reviewing this crap are drinking the AI koolaid and “punching everything up!” with a few rounds of ChatGPT.

          • Yeah, “thousands of days” seems like a first-draft attempt at “let’s choose a unit of smaller magnitude to make this seem more serious to the plebs.” And everyone around him drowning their brains in GPT slurry shouted, “excellent turn of phrase, sir!”

  • Is this what competing product releases look like now? Illya runs off and promises to “never release any software until it’s superintelligent” and I guess that forces Sam to compete for debt by promises to release software AND superintelligence?

  •  froztbyte   ( @froztbyte@awful.systems ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    2 days ago
    In [1]: for i in range(1, 5): print(f"{i*1000} days: {i*1000/365} years")
    1000 days: 2.73972602739726 years
    2000 days: 5.47945205479452 years
    3000 days: 8.219178082191782 years
    4000 days: 10.95890410958904 years
    

    how many is a “few”, 'ole sammy mah boi

    and can you definitely find a way to set 6b+/year on fire (with growth for salaries and costs) for that long?

    truly, the sfba business model is one of the most remarkable of the last 2 decades

  •  xor   ( @xor@infosec.pub ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 days ago

    you can always tell these articles are garbage by the photos they choose:
    did they pick some picture of the subject making some exaggerated doubtful face, completely out of context?
    yeah, that’s not journalism, that’s tabloid trash….

      •  Comment105   ( @Comment105@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Honestly yeah.

        9/10 articles are about as well written as an average comment, and less to the point. We also know just how bad they tend to be on factually, we know they don’t hold themselves to any kind of respectable standard, there’s practically nothing to gain from reading their “work”. We’re going to come out of it with barely a whiff of reality whether we read it or not. You have to properly dive into it to understand what the potential trajectories really are here.

        Personally I already know that scale makes a massive difference, I don’t believe in souls so I find it reasonable to think of consciousness as emergent from simpler parts at scale, but maybe this approach won’t get there and something more neuromorphic is necessary.

        I also already know with some certainty that they’re gonna keep scaling up for now, it’s not interesting at all that “In roughly 3 years GPT will be smarter and faster and more consistent probably.”

        Besides, even if we achieve consciousness we’ll reject the possibility and abuse it like it isn’t for at least a decade where the only tangible difference will be better AI work and a machine capable of subdued suffering and hate and maybe murder eventually. But that’s no more terrifying than people who believe in going to heaven for righteous holy wars being in possession of nuclear weapons so I don’t really care if the current trajectory AI theoretically has all this potential. It doesn’t make life on Earth feel less safe or less stable. ChatGPT-4o is very good at figuring out what word I’m trying to think of and that’s kind of sweet. I don’t like AI trash littering Google images, though. Pretty unfortunate, that.

        Either way, most articles are utterly pointless.

        They’re generally written for search engine optimization, not people.

        Almost none of the articles I’ve ever read even use links/sources properly as far as I was taught it, they just pointlessly link to themselves ad nauseam. Mention something Elon Musk said or did? Turn the name into a hyperlink to another article where they wrote something else about the man. Professional.

        “Articles” are not a respectable medium.

        They’re long internet posts written by someone with a boss with an advertising partner, and few of the writers have any qualifications worth mentioning. Usually they can’t call themselves knowledgeable in the subject. Often they can’t even call themselves interested.