Thanks!

“Unused computes on the Internet are harvested, creating … human brain hardware capacity.”

Neuralink

“The online chat rooms of the late 1990s have been replaced with virtual environments…with full visual realism.”

VRChat

“Interactive brain-generated music … is another popular genre.”

Algoraves

“the underclass is politically neutralized through public assistance and the generally high level of affluence”

Obamacare

“Diagnosis almost always involves collaboration between a human physician and a … expert system.”

Asimo

Literally the first human-cpu interface?

Pretty sure keyboards are older

Absolutely amazing post, thank you so much. So that’s one correct prediction and nine on a spectrum from wrong to meaningless!

there aren’t morally relevant differences between arthropods and other animals that justifies not equally considering their interests

That’s funny, this is usually an argument against animal liberation.

You’re implicitly accepting that eventually AI will be better than you once it gets “good enough”. May as well jump in ahead of the curve, right?

What gave you the impression? Most if not all of us here believe that it fundamentally can’t ever get good enough and that the only use case is spam and spamlike activities.

It’s interesting that language emerges from the math at, all, let alone how plausible the output is in most situations. That’s more than interesting.

It’s interesting, but it’s not language. It’s sequences of characters that plausibly look like language. You can’t use language without intent.

I like how even the “correct” response at the end has got this paragraph of absolute nonsense.

To minimize the number of trips, the robot should use a strategy that reduces the number of elevator rides. Since the elevator can carry the robot and up to 3 other items, the robot can take all 4 vegetables in one trip if it is allowed to carry all of them at once. However, if the robot can only carry 3 items in addition to itself, it would need to make at least two trips.

And I hate how even though I know perfectly well how it works I still asked myself what it was trying to say here. God I hate chatbots. I hate the mockery of meaning.

[W]hat is perhaps my most fundamental philosophical conviction is this: life is Good, human life especially so. The most natural things in the universe are death, decay, and emptiness. Growth, life, and creation are fragile anomalies. We belong to an eons-long heritage of those who have committed to building and maintaining life in the face of inevitable decay. Our duty is to do the same.

Putting aside the obvious elders of zionny subtext… I’m an unabashed humanist and this is one of the most childishly anthropocentric things I’ve ever read. Death and decay are human concepts you big dummy. Sucks for you that you apparently can’t imagine our universe outside of your silly meat-bound linear-time phenomenology, but do try to respect and enjoy reality instead of talking like a 1920s pulp protagonist.

Aw, Hanania’s a good egg, he liked my incredibly stupid case for surrogacy from a reactionary perspective with shit machine-generated illustrations

I’m assuming he does have OCD, but given the context I don’t know if I’m very confident about how much ironic distance there is to the name…

Tracingwoodgrains is a reference to one of the sillier plot points in Card’s Ender series, right? Not very flattering imo.

As always, Valerie Solanas had the better plan sixty years ago.

Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents? How many women will deliberately get or (if an accident) remain pregnant? No, Virginia, women don’t just adore being brood mares, despite what the mass of robot, brainwashed women will say. When society consists of only the fully conscious the answer will be none. Should a certain percentage of men be set aside by force to serve as brood mares for the species? Obviously this will not do. The answer is laboratory reproduction of babies.

[…]

Why produce even females? Why should there be future generations? What is their purpose? When aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce? Why should we care what happens when we’re dead? Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us.

Eventually the natural course of events, of social evolution, will lead to total female control of the world and, subsequently, to the cessation of the production of males and, ultimately, to the cessation of the production of females.

What I find delightful about this is that I already wasn’t impressed! Because, as the paper goes on to say

Moreover, although the UBE is a closed-book exam for humans, GPT-4’s huge training corpus largely distilled in its parameters means that it can effectively take the UBE “open-book”

And here I was thinking it not getting a perfect score on multiple-choice questions was already damning. But apparently it doesn’t even get a particularly good score!

From Re-evaluating GPT-4’s bar exam performance (linked in the article):

First, although GPT-4’s UBE score nears the 90th percentile when examining approximate conversions from February administrations of the Illinois Bar Exam, these estimates are heavily skewed towards repeat test-takers who failed the July administration and score significantly lower than the general test-taking population.

Ohhh, that is sneaky!

I like how climate-change denying trolls in the replies are mainly advancing these two arguments:

• Temperature hasn’t been rising over the 20th century, it’s only an artefact of changing thermometers
• It used to be even warmer during the Roman Empire anyway

Oh well done, you added noise to a line going up!

ethics laundering