There's nothing wrong with sharing dreams or AI conversations. The problem with those things is that people are shitty storytellers and don't know how to keep things short. If you simply tell people you had a weird dream about XYZ, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. If you go into exquisite detail and make it a fucking LOTR epic saga, peoples eyes will glaze over.

> Why would you do this instead of just generating real data?

The idea would be that harnessing the AI's ability to create massive amounts of regurgitated old data quickly and then transmuting it into 'new data' somehow is faster than acquiring real data.

I mean I believe you, I'm not in this field nor a genius, so if the top AI people are seeing it as a problem then I have to assume it really is, I just don't understand it fully.

If ChatGPT creates a paragraph, I then take that paragraph and alter it significantly, how is that new never before seen by AI or humans paragraph not new data for the AI?

Thanks for trying to help me btw.

I watched the video. I can understand why reading it's own data wouldn't work, but I can't understand why having it create a bunch of data and then altering the data, then giving it back to the AI wouldn't. The key here is that we have machines that can create data at super human speeds. There has to be some way to do something with that data to make it useful to the AI again, right?

Does this mean it only learns from novel information it takes in? As in it can never learn anything about cat conversations after the 10th conversation it reads about a cat? I mean what's the difference between it reading about something it made versus reading someone a person wrote that says something similar? I just can't figure out how you can't get around this by using AI somehow.

Like: AI A makes a billion terabytes of content.

AI B takes in content and makes it 'unique/new/special' somehow.

Give it back to AI A or even a new AI C.

> It's not like the internet is suddenly going to 10x in size over the next couple of years. Especially as the global population is shrinking and most people are already connected online so not a lot of new data is made.

I don't get this. Can't AI generate more data for itself in like, a year, than all human communications since the dawn of the internet? Why would the internet need to 10x in size if the population gets a hold of AI that increases the amount of content generated by x1000? Seems like you just need an AI that generates a fuck ton of content and then another one that determines what in that content is "quality". I am totally ignorant here, I just find the 'running out of data' thing quite strange.

Then you don't actually care about who benefits from our current system. Why would anyone care about your opinion?

How sad wasn't supposed to be an argument, it was an insult.

Where the top 10% own something like 50% of the wealth? No, this system is trash and unsustainable. There will eventually be no need for it. If you think Capitalism is the final stage of humanity.. how sad.

How is wanting benefits of powerful technology going to the masses insufferable?