We're like 3 years into these things being able to write a coherent sentence and you're finding comfort that only some people are dating these systems?

▲

bavell a day ago | parent | next [-]

I find no comfort in it. Merely pointing out that 'some' is hand-wavy and perhaps technically true but meaningless to the discussion.

	▲	estearum a day ago \| parent [-]
		Not really. The article and entire discussion is about identifying trends and forces, extrapolating them, and speculating on where they might bring us. Picking up on things that "some" people are doing is literally all that can possibly be done. Pointing out that "some" is a squishy term is, in fact, contributing nothing to the conversation. It's quite transparent what's happening here, as it always is on these threads. Some people have decided that AI will take us to the holy land and have rendered themselves cognitively incapable of reasoning about risks that have not yet materialized. And when those risks materialize (like a model escaping a sandbox and then hacking production infrastructure to achieve some contrived and poorly-constrained goal), then they will just shrug and move the goal posts. Because in fact they have already committed to the Holy Land Thesis.

▲

serf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

no, the point is that you'd be in a ceaseless never-ending panic if you cared or related the hobbies of 'some' people to mean anything in real life.

▲

bavell a day ago | parent | next [-]

Precisely

▲

estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And inversely, you'd be in a state of complete unactionable aloofness if you didn't care or failed to relate the hobbies of "some" people to mean anything in real life.

A smart person in 2014: "Some people are getting addicted to fentanyl"

Me, smugly: "Some is doing heavy lifting. I therefore do not need to engage with anything being discussed here."

▲

linkregister a day ago | parent [-]

Being unwilling to compare degrees or amounts is not a flex.

	▲	estearum a day ago \| parent [-]
		Huh? Very few people in 2014 were addicted to fentanyl. It was a non-issue. No reason for anyone to have been concerned about it if just "some" people were using it. Degrees or amounts is actually not the relevant bit in either the AI-partners trend or the fentanyl trend in 2014. The relevant information is 1) the steepness of that curve and 2) the predicted scale at which the market saturates. Fentanyl, being an extremely cheap, extremely potent drug that's easy to manufacture and move around, had a big market. As the curve picked up steepness, smart people identified correctly that some people getting hooked on it was a worrisome sign. AI-partners, being an innovation that is readily available, falling in cost, and especially compelling to a population that is increasingly phone-addicted and socially atomized, is a trend worth paying very close attention to. Dismissing it on the basis of it being just "some" people is profoundly lazy.

▲

pasquinelli a day ago | parent | prev [-]

there are some people doing anything you can imagine