What if we made a Star Trek movie, but with a smaller 50-100M budget so we can gear it towards existing Star Trek fans instead of hiring JJ Abrams to churn out another generic summer Blockbuster with a thin veneer of Star Trek branding.
In this movie, there will be no violence and the ship won't even fire its' weapons. The script will be thought-provoking with a heavy focus on space and science interweaved with humanist philosophy where the crew overcome some sort of moral or ethical dilemma.
In other words... a Star Trek movie, for fans of Star Trek movies, made in the style of the first Star Trek movies.
No doubt - the advertisers are 100% right to pull out. I was only answering the original commenter that asked how the MM report could be considered defamatory. I definitely didn't intend to come across as a Musk apologist.
I agree that the core claim of the MM report is not under dispute. But take a look at their article now that you know the context around how those ads were generated.
I don't know if it's defamatory, but you have to agree that it comes off as a bit disingenuous based on the new info from X. Of course that info from X could be BS, which is why I said we'll have to wait for the court case to know for sure.
It doesn't really matter if Microsoft/OpenAI are the only ones with the underlying technology as long as the only economically feasible way to deploy the tech at scale is to rely on one of the big 3 cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft). The profits still accrue to them, whether we use a larger/inflexible or smaller/flexible model to power the AI - the most effective/common/economical way for businesses to leverage it will be as an AWS service or something similar.
Are you saying you're cool with neofeudalism? Or just agreeing that this is yet another inevitable (albeit lamentable) step towards it?
Fair enough, but the short term track we're on is still a hellish dystopia. For the societal damage I'm worried about to happen, we don't really need AGI as you are probably defining it. If we use the OpenAI definition for AGI, "systems that surpass human capabilities in a majority of economically valuable tasks", I'd argue that the technology we have today is practically there already. The only thing holding back the dystopia is that corporate America hasn't fully adapted to the new paradigm.
Imagine a future where most fast food jobs have been replaced by AI-powered kiosks and drive-thrus.
Imagine a future where most customer service jobs have been replaced by AI-powered video chat kiosks.
Imagine a future where most artistic commission work is completed by algorithms.
Imagine a future where all the news and advertising you read or watch is generated specifically to appeal to you by algorithms.
In this future, are the benefits of this technology shared equitably so that the people who used to do these jobs can enjoy their newfound leisure time? Or will those folks live in poverty while the majority of their incomes are siphoned off to the small fraction of the populace which are MS investors?
Did you read the article? X is alleging that media matters had to manipulate their platform in order for it to generate these ads next to the hateful accounts. According to their records, those ads only appeared one time, for the user account associated with Media Matters. This supports their theory that manipulation was required.
I guess we'll have to wait for the court case to find out who's right. But immediately assuming the X lawsuit has no merits just because you don't like Elon Musk is a bit disingenuous.
I believe one of the worst possible timelines for the average human is one where for-profit capitalist entities control access to AGI and horde all the benefits accrued from it. OpenAI was founded specifically to avoid this - with a complicated governance structure designed to ensure true AGI would end up owned by humanity with the benefits shared by all.
The OpenAI board and top researchers made a desperate bid to prioritize safety over profits, and even with that elaborate governance structure behind them capitalism still seems to have found a way to fuck us.
Today we saw Satya Nadella and Sam Altman steer humanity further from a possible utopia and closer to.... Cyberpunk 2077.
Good for MS, bad for humanity. I believe one of the worst possible timelines for the average human is one where for-profit capitalist entities control access to AGI and horde all the benefits accrued from it. OpenAI was founded specifically to avoid this - with a complicated governance structure designed to ensure true AGI would end up owned by humanity with the benefits shared by all.
The OpenAI board and top researchers made a desperate bid to prioritize safety over profits, and even with that elaborate governance structure behind them capitalism still seems to have found a way to fuck us.
Today we saw Satya Nadella and Sam Altman steer humanity further from a possible utopia and closer to.... Cyberpunk 2077.
Here's what I don't understand. They went through the Singularity to the future because that was the only place the Control AI wouldn't be able to find them, right? Except Control was already destroyed before they went through the Singularity!
I've never even been able to start season 3 because I just can't get past the stupidity of not reversing the engines away from the Singularity the moment Control was eliminated as a threat.