https://pixabay.com/users/geralt-9301/
Having written copiously about AI and knowing a little bit, it's becoming rather obvious we have lost control as neural nets, as often stated before in BRT, are analog constructs requiring real-time software able to evolve on its own in realtime in order to react to the real world in real-time, something human coders will never be able to do in any way, shape or fashion, an inconvenient fact the Google's of the world tend not to bandy about because losing control of any tech as powerful as this is not good for business. In Funhouse, we learn Google will now scrape all of our online data whether we like it or not in order to "improve" Bard in the months and years ahead.
Wired's piece, Generative AI in Games Will Create a Copyright Crisis centers on the fact any AI-generated art belongs to the Google's of the world and not the artist's, something clearly stated in the contract one must agree to before using the code in question, a Faustian Bargain for the ages.
But this isn't the real issue about the specter of AI as copyright's already a questionable sea of ambiguities tech is already rendering moot 24/7 while the pursuit of general intelligence AI continues apace with researchers beginning to pucker as AI never sleeps in its pursuit to get smarter at speeds beyond the kin of man.
The question this writer poses is ...
What is the survivability rate of civilizations living on rocky planets reaching the level of tech we have if the same laws of physics apply to said planets as plundering one's home similar to how we are doing to earth in order to amp up said civilizations seems to be a no-brainer AKAICT.
A.G.I./Neoliberalism goes digital ...
Mathieu Larone
The mounting anxiety about A.I. isn’t because of the boring but reliable technologies that autocomplete our text messages or direct robot vacuums to dodge obstacles in our living rooms. It is the rise of artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I., that worries the experts.
A.G.I. doesn’t exist yet, but some believe that the rapidly growing capabilities of OpenAI’s ChatGPT suggest its emergence is near. Sam Altman, a co-founder of OpenAI, has described it as “systems that are generally smarter than humans.” Building such systems remains a daunting — some say impossible — task. But the benefits appear truly tantalizing.
But in the end, it's all about the money, always has been, always will be.
But companies need profits, and such benevolence, especially from unprofitable firms burning investors’ billions, is uncommon. OpenAI, having accepted billions from Microsoft, has contemplated raising another $100 billion to build A.G.I. Those investments will need to be earned back — against the service’s staggering invisible costs. (One estimate from February put the expense of operating ChatGPT at $700,000 per day.)
With A.G.I., this reliance will only deepen, not least because A.G.I. is unbounded in its scope and ambition. No administrative or government services would be immune to its promise of disruption.
After so many Uber- and Theranos-like traumas, we already know what to expect of an A.G.I. rollout. It will consist of two phases. First, the charm offensive of heavily subsidized services. Then the ugly retrenchment, with the overdependent users and agencies shouldering the costs of making them profitable.
A.G.I.-ism has rekindled this solutionist fervor. Last year, Mr. Altman stated that “A.G.I. is probably necessary for humanity to survive” because “our problems seem too big” for us to “solve without better tools.” He’s recently asserted that A.G.I. will be a catalyst for human flourishing.
Why the Future Doesn't Need Us applies.
No comments:
Post a Comment