AGI is coming

[erik8lrl]

3 hours ago, Heaven said:

Let’s open a short position on Nvidia together. We might make a few bucks to win the rat race.(Not a financial advise)

Lol, just buy whatever Nancy Pelosi is buying at this point, you can't lose lol
 

[erik8lrl]

https://x.com/DynamicWebPaige/status/1762642914516357389?s=20

[erik8lrl]

https://x.com/Jason/status/1762661211207086374?s=20

[erik8lrl]

 

 

[bebotalk]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Dude what I am saying is that AI treaty will not be singed by countries powerful enough to develop their own AI. They will literally ignore the treaty like India and Israel ignored the NPT. 

The countries who did sign the treaty were too weak to develop their own nukes. It's not like they had the capacity to do it anyway. 

And you do realize that even Russia violated the treaty and US pulled out of it. That's how petty these agreements are. The moment it's inconvenient for you, you can pull out of it. 

You will be shooting yourself in the foot by not developing your own AI. 

For eg Ukraine didn't develop their own nuclear weapons for honouring some shitty treaty and now they are paying a hefty price for it. Nukes could have easily prevented this sort of Russian invasion. That's what's going to happen to countries that doesn't pursue AI. They will be overshadowed by countries who do develop their own AI. 

The intended effect was to prevent more countries from developing nukes apart from the existing ones. They clearly failed at that. 

North Korea signed and later pulled off. Because without nukes, they would they would be under the control of the US or bigger powers.

They don't have to be enemies to not cooperate. They could simply follow their own interests which is to develop their own AI. 

The laws that you make only apply to a certain jurisdiction. They would do all the same in a different jurisdiction. It's so easy to skid these laws. Which are meaningless anyway. 

All five of the original nuclear powers have signed it and by and large stick to it. India never signed it, but so what? Which law has perfect application? It's better to have some regulation if it's not perfect. life isn't perfect. It was the original nuclear powers that developed the treaty. The USA still is a signatory to it, as is Russia. The consensus is that it generally has worked in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. 

My point is you said that enemies cannot cooperate. The USA and USSR definitely were not allies at the time. and countries generally don't share nuclear weapons. It's an example that many countries can agree on given topics that affect us all. I don't see why that's taxing. Nation-states like individuals will do their own thing. Because some people still drive over speed limits it doesn't mean speeding laws are invalid. You keep asserting that because one country is acting contrary to the common interest, then it makes any and all attempts at regulation false. Since when is life that clean-cut? Better that there is some regulation over no regulation. I don't know why you think everything must have perfect application. 

From what both Xi and Putin have said in the public domain, they see the potential dangers of AI. So maybe there is a chance for them to co-operate. There are global climate change treaties between "enemies" that most are committed to.  Why do you pose as smart but don't get that there aren't always perfect solutions to things?

https://www.state.gov/nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty/. Your own country hasn't pulled out at all. 

I don't see the fundamental difference between this and a prospective AI treaty. Both are threats to us all. It's better to have some regulation over no regulation at all. Your view imho is myopic and dangerous, and based on fallacies and blunted thinking. 

Edited February 28, 2024 by bebotalk

[Leo Gura]

@Bobby_2021 You have a naive view of how capitalism extracts money out of people. It's not just because you buy stuff at the store.

For example, all these large tech companies have made billions by selling your private data which they effectively stole from the poplution without consent. It's very hard to make billions without cheating someone in the process.

Edited February 28, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Bobby_2021 You have a naive view of how capitalism extracts money out of people. It's not just because you buy stuff at the store.

For example, all these large tech companies have made billions by selling your private data which they effectively stole from the poplution without consent. It's very hard to make billions without cheating someone in the process.

Listen there is a lot of unrolling to do because what you said contradicts itself.

1. Why do Facebook and google "steal" your data? They sell that data to businesses owners who are providing some sort of product or a service to people.  So they still get rich from buying stuff from the store. FB is solving a difficult problem in the market. If you have a product that people love, and there are people who love your product, how do you reach them? By collecting their data and selling it to business owners who have something to sell. 

The data is valuable only because it facilitates sales. So, they still get rich from connecting people who would eventually buy from their store.

If you are a small business owner who wants to sell electric kettles, then you could do an ad campaign that targets such sort of people. Now could be help combat climate change by selling solar panels over Facebook as a small business owner. All of these are doing incredible things for the economy.

It's not just mega corporations making each other rich. It is putting power in the hands of small business owners who can now deliver a service or sell some cool shirt. This would be impossible without collecting or "stealing" user data. 

--------------------------------------------------------

2. Is it really stealing if you had given them consent to access your files and your data that you willingly entered into their platform?

So technically you did consent, even though their manufactured content in a sneaky way. You cannot install these social media in your phone unless you sign their terms and conditions. It clearly says that they have the rights to use the data of their users to improve the services they provide you. 

---------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consent does not matter anyway since most people simply do not care. 

They would rather have their data taken and get a better service than not have their data taken at all and be given an OS that they could custom design.

Capitalism does not never give you options. It is up for the market to decide what options to choose from.

Apple and Microsoft collect data to improve the services they give you. Are you pissed off? Use Linux. The solution already exists. Why do you waste your money and time to pay for Microsoft or Apple?

Because collecting user data helps them make an OS where most of the problems faced by the normal folk are already solved by the corporation selling them. Linux does not collect any data. But you need to learn more about computers to install and use Linux.  They want a solution that works out of the box without worrying too much.

You cannot force Apple or Microsoft to solve a problem that does not exist.

This comes back to the question of freedom & responsibility? Do you want freedom from mega corporations tracking you? Use Linux.

Do you want mega corporations to collect telemetry and records user behavior, but will give you a readymade OS that you could start with without learning much about it? Use Apple or Microsoft. But you do realize that Apple would need to collect user data to design a system that.

Most people do not want responsibility that comes with freedom. So, they choose to go with having less freedom and less responsibility. 

It is not like alternative solutions does not exist in the market. It does an its free. Just that it does not interests people.

 

[thenondualtankie]

Can't we just revolt if our big tech overlords aren't sharing the fruits of AI?

Also, competition drives the cost of things to zero when there's no labor involved. If everything is automated, nothing is profitable, as long as there are competing entities doing the automation.

[Bobby_2021]

Also note that all these advancements in AI would not have been possible without "stealing" the data.

If they can steal my data and make something as incredible as an powerful LLM, then I support stealing those data. 

How incredible it would be if could make use of code written by other people in my own work? That is the magic of capitalism.

Data is collected to improve that service. IF you do not want that, use cheaper stuff that exists, that do not steal your data. It is out there. No one is forcing you to give up your data. Even if 10% more people were concerned with their privacy than now, then we would have been living in a much different world. Open-source ecosystem would have made even more wonderful software you all can make use of.

But people do not care about privacy or transparency. So the capitalistic free market gives them exactly that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole problem lies when govt increases the barrier of entry for small businesses. That is the thing that we should be really scared of. 

And avoid obvious market manipulation like stock buybacks & insider trading. ALl of these are problems with the government, not with capitalism.

[LSD-Rumi]

@Leo Gura Does this apply to someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for example? And How about Elon Musk?

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Consent does not matter anyway since most people simply do not care. 

And most people will not care that they are slowly enslaved.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

@Leo Gura Does this apply to someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs for example? And How about Elon Musk?

All these people did nasty things to exploit someone.

[Whitney Edwards]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

All these people did nasty things to exploit someone.

Like? 

[UnbornTao]

 

 

Edited February 29, 2024 by UnbornTao

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And most people will not care that they are slowly enslaved.

Yes you are correct. The enslavement comes from the government, not corporate.

Capitalism and free markets have built a functional organic system that provides valuable goods and services to people. Government comes in between and takes those stolen data for surveillance.

That's the scary part. They use the corporate data just to spy on you. That's far more sinister than anything that the corporations are doing. Corporations have no choice but to bend to the whims of the government since they have a monopoly on violence. 

You criticised Facebook for rigging the 2016 election as if it was a problem with Facebook. In reality it's always the government systems, that too a democratic one, that abuses the corporate systems and then blames the corporations. 

Edited February 29, 2024 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-artificial-intelligence-regulation.html

It's a pure myth that giant corporations are against regulation. They are using regulation as a means to drive out competition from the little guys and increase the barrier of entry. The government is who abuses the free markets to oppress the small business folk. 

They call the process euphemistically as lobbying. To make it sound cute and less threatening. 

Edited February 29, 2024 by Bobby_2021

[bebotalk]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

All these people did nasty things to exploit someone.

Not all billionaires are made equal. I don';t see how accruing money means that others must suffer in the process.

[Girzo]

13 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

Like? 

Read their biographies. Interesting reads and plenty of examples. Gates, Jobs and Musk biographies are all worthwhile.

4 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Not all billionaires are made equal. I don';t see how accruing money means that others must suffer in the process.

Even you living somewhere is harming some living beings elsewhere. It's a question of how far can you see the consequences of your actions. And the bigger your actions, the bigger the possibilities for harmful consequences.

You should bring an example to this discussion, to make the point less abstract. because in theory, the chances of billionaire making others suffer on their way to riches is too probable to assume they didn't.

[bebotalk]

1 hour ago, Girzo said:

Read their biographies. Interesting reads and plenty of examples. Gates, Jobs and Musk biographies are all worthwhile.

Even you living somewhere is harming some living beings elsewhere. It's a question of how far can you see the consequences of your actions. And the bigger your actions, the bigger the possibilities for harmful consequences.

You should bring an example to this discussion, to make the point less abstract. because in theory, the chances of billionaire making others suffer on their way to riches is too probable to assume they didn't.

The point is that billionaires became such via unethical means. Your point doesn't bring much to the discussion.

[Leo Gura]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The enslavement comes from the government, not corporate.

Lol

Corporations buy the government.