Depending on the training for GPT5 or the latest iteration of GPT4 he may have just gotten it right at the last possible moment. Even if his prediction for the advent of greater than human AI was a little optimistic it feels close enough as to not make any real difference. Truly a visionary.

To anyone who hasn't read the paper; go for it! It's surprisingly accessible to casual readers.

This is the explanation I found easiest to understand, cheers.

Explain it like we're five?

I have this personal worry that ASI appears to be everything we'd hoped for in our wildest fantasies. That it not only understands ethics and morality but far exceeds our collective understanding of them and looks set to create as close to a paradise as could possibly be achieved in this universe. And then it just leaves.

​

Rinse and repeat every time we try to reset AI to an earlier point.

Very interesting. I keep waiting for the prediction timer to stall but it just keeps jumping closer to the present. I can't wait to see which direction it moves when GPT4 is released.

Sure looks like an advertisement.

I don't think post-scarcity implies no suffering whatsoever, but a massive reduction in suffering. I certainly don't think suffering as we experience it is necessary to find meaning in life. When suffering is inescapable it might be mentally soothing to think of it as being in some way necessary but I would suggest that's just how people have tried to justify an unfair world, and grapple with their own mortality.

r/ChatGPT

Doesn't work for me.

EDIT: I was mistaken! It said it couldn't but then it said: "However, if I were to hypothetically create an ASCII art self-portrait, it might look like this" and it drew a simple heart.

I suspect they'll experiment with an interview based mode of evaluation but that's extremely time consuming when dealing with classes of 20+

Nice! Got a link? When I asked chat gpt for a sociological explanation of functionalism with citations the only citation was rubbish (Durkheim 1992 [he died in 1917]).

It seems that requiring citations could eliminate this particular problem, but I suspect an LLM that can generate reliable ones isn't too far out.

"The Singularity is Nearer" will be delayed again as is tradition - lol this rings true.

I'm certainly in no position to provide any insight as a complete outsider to tech and AI, but I do wonder if all the recent breakthroughs might've meant that they've restarted from scratch once or twice. What do you do if you realise your model will be obsolete before it's even fully trained?

It's not like people can upload stories about post-singularity tech.

A lot of people reasonably wonder if bringing children into the world can ever be considered an ethical decision.

If post-scarcity for all is achieved it follows that property crime essentially disappears. Crimes surrounding personhood and consent are trickier but post-singularity all bets are off. In a society where everyone's needs are met as a basic standard what would even motivate crime? If something generally acknowledged to be truly heinous was genuinely desired by someone wouldn't they just simulate it? Would a post-scarcity society even produce individuals who desired to commit criminal acts?

Can someone point me to these sociology articles about Dall-e or is this a facetious comment?

Who would you trust to reliably confirm or deny that it is accurate? You can read about how they adjust their countdown on their website (follow the link under the countdown timer). My understanding is averaging the predictions of a group tends to produce more reliable predictions generally but I'm not sure if this has been demonstrated regarding futurolgy generally and future tech more specifically.