|
| ▲ | lovecg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I’d give humans some credit, they’re an adaptable bunch. AI won’t replace humans in the same way humans did not replace cockroaches. It’s a non-sequitur. |
| |
| ▲ | bsza an hour ago | parent [-] | | We generally don’t allow cockroaches to thrive in the spaces we claim for ourselves. Question is how much space (economic or otherwise) will AI claim for itself and whether there will be any left for us. |
|
|
| ▲ | geraneum 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Humans are poorly optimized for almost anything, and built on a substrate that's barely hanging together Goodness gracious! |
|
| ▲ | vatsachak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, for starters AI doesn't have goals. If there was a super intelligence with goals, why would they work for us? |
| |
| ▲ | devttyeu 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fwiw if you trained an LLM in an RL sandbox that would require it to have goals, the output llm probably would "have goals" |
|
|
| ▲ | stonogo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not like large language models, which only required tens of megawatts of power and use highly efficient monte carlo methods, eh |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Individual humans are processing nodes on human culture as a whole, which runs on rather more than tens of megawatts. | | |
| ▲ | unsupp0rted 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also it costs a lot to train and run individual humans, and they can only be run for brief periods per day before they crash, hallucinate and possibly get irretrievably broken. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
