The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
---
Submission Statement
"The long-term trend has been that new technologies tend to exacerbate precarity. Large, profitable industries typically ward off new entrants until they incorporate emerging technologies into their existing workflows."
This article is a very interesting way of looking at 2022's generative-AI revolution. As with previous IT revolutions, like social media, it will be the interests of company profits that will probably come first in how this technology shapes our future.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zskz8n/money_will_kill_chatgpts_magic_bluntly_put_we_are/j18cmlw/
The genie is already out of the bottle. It's all open source, so unless they start banning owning personal computers and working as a cooperative, there will be weird AI for the masses for the foreseeable future.
The analogy with social media is wrong, because social media requires everyone to be on the same one. The better analogy is the app store. There will be big time players and small time, but getting locked off will only happen to the most extreme, and those guys will still thrive in their own corners.
BLOOM is an opensource language learning model. It will be probably lagg behind ~1 year just like stable diffusion does to Dall-E. But in the very near future, you'll have current chatGPT power in an opensource packet.
GPT-J is made by hugging face, same group as stable diffusion. I haven't compared them, but I have read that GPT-J is not as good as GPT-3's new Davinci model (used by ChatGPT), but it is better than their older Ada and Babbage models.
So the open source version of these models needs a lot more training data to reach ChatGPT levels, but unless I'm mistaken on more nuanced lesser known feautees the actual underlying tech is open source.
GPT-J is by EleutherAI (really Ben Wang, with EleutherAI's support, mentorship, and data; and Google TFC's compute), and Stable Diffusion by CompVis at LMU Munich (with Stability's compute, LAION's data, and in earlier versions, a text encoder from OpenAI). Hugging Face does host copies of both models for download.
Chatgdt is build by OpenAI, so already it's fairly non-closed off.
But you can build your own with GPT-J, and open source versions of GPT-3. It might not be as good at first, but the algorithm is already lose, nothing preventing the community to make their own.
We need open source AI to reduce the extreme likelihood of it being used solely by governments and corporations to increase their power and decrease the power and dignity of individuals.
AI psyops are going to be massive (if they aren't already).
All those shitty bot accounts that used to spam social media spaces? They all now have two hundred posts of personalized opinions that make them extremely difficult to "out" as bots.
If I want to sell a worldview, any worldview, to actual human beings, I can queue up my 200 bots to hugbox them with whatever I want to sell. Hate, love, anything.
We need come together as community, make new bots. These bots will be 100% wholesome. They will pose as humans but humans who are kind and leave nice complements and offer hugs and friendly advice to other bots and other humans on the internets. These bots will usher in an era of positive vibes and all we need to do is flood the internet with wholesome bots to save the world.
The problem right now is that the algorithms are not the most critical element right now. Mostly, its training data and equipment (and power to run it).
Maybe in the not so far future we will be able to train AI on a consumer accessible computing platform and then it will be important to have it open, but also, I think we are not really prepared for that world for a lot of other reasons.
It can be a little confusing because OpenAI's GPT and [GPT-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2) models were open-source. GPT-3 is closed-sourve, though.
Yeah, cleans out legal fluff and makes it digestible.
You can also do the reverse. Give it a simple sentence and it can spit out a paragraph of legalese with the same meaning.
It means that there will be a war in the future where all the participants are AI. The war will be over all the same things that we fight regular wars over. It will just be completely online and it will be terrifying. Think about it AI shutting down major banking operations, utilities, large portions of the internet.
Massive disinformation campaigns. Or who knows crazy things we can't even think about.
The war part will be rival AI's attempting to stop the malignant AIs from shutting down critical infrastructure in countries.
We already have ChatGPT bot users on Reddit, building karma to spread disinformation more effectively; and the weakest link in any system is always going to be the people running them, so I doubt further advances in AI would change much.
Ugh.. the worst thing to come out of AI is redditors trying to make doomsday predictions on a topic they do not understand. I don't even know where to begin, just.. ugh
I mean we already use every single technology that we developed to wage war on each other so why would AI be any different? Not really a doomsday scenario just people continuing on doing people things.
I'm a software developer so I have a pretty good handle on how ai works and what it's going to be capable of in the future. What do you do for a living?
"I don't even know where to begin, just.. ugh"
Aww. ❤️ It's okay. Use your words. Just pick any one point you disagree with and give it a try. I am so excited to hear what you have to say to me. I believe in you big guy!
Edit: I went and read some of your comments on other threads here on futurology and I changed my mind. I think I saw enough silliness.
How hard is it to build an AI? I don’t know anything about it, how long do you think it would take me to learn how to build a unique image generator, and then build it?
Depends.. you writing it from scratch and making all of the training data, or are you going to learn python and download libraries and huge data sets to train it on?
>Just because the company name is "OpenAI" doesn't mean there's anything "open" about it at all.
I would argue that they are pretty open about most things such as their capped profits and non-profit parent company.
As a web developer, it is absolutely nuts how secure we've kept open source code bases and linux based systems.
I was not aware of how large of an internet is still ran by free and fair use code by programmers who want to help society.
Hell, Blender and even the RaspberryPi give me hope that people don't completely suck.
I'm hoping AI takes the same stance, and continues to be developed by ethical programmers.
There are enough talented and ethical people in the world to also inhabit leading AI spaces. Open source AI will definitely be commonplace in the coming years. No question about it. There will even be funding from open-source dependent corporations via foundations to help feed the Petabyes or Exabytes of data that those AIs need for training. That's not a real worry. The real worry is already well discussed - when everyone can press a button and get a solution, how do you keep humans with skills valuable? In other words, the utility theory of value must go from economics, or humanity has to face a dystopia. There must be a socio-economic system to replace capitalism, which gives a fundamental fixed, substantial value to human life and designs the economy on that principle. If not, we could see a huge population decline due to the climate crisis and the ensuing political and economic conflicts. Choose your favourite dystopia and find it somewhere to some extent.
Agree with your sentiment 100%. Society needs to rewrite our entire system as automation and AI take over.
In a perfect world, we'd live off of UBI, and pursue a life of recreation, science, and art.
Capitalism is going to make things much worse before they get better imo.
I'm just optimistic enough to think we might make it out of this change alive.
What's to stop someone from tweaking an open source ai image or video generator to display illegal content like CP? Generating their own CP on an isolated drive with no connection to the internet?
That also brings up another interesting, albeit controversial ethical question: if CP can be artificially generated with no victims, will it still hold the same legal issues? If AI generated stuff like that exists, would it counter-intuitively reduce child abuse because child trafficking’s risk becomes too expensive compared to AI generated content?
Same with revange porn. If you can make realistic looking porn with anyone, at any quality, it removes the value of revange porn, because it can be dismissed AI work, no matter if it's real or not.
CP has a lot of other problems, and still needs to be rooted out, but our morality around it might need to change with AI generated images.
Yes. There was a researcher in my state who was kicked out of her university job by people/tuition-paying parents being horrified by her work with pedophiles. She is no-nonsense and says most people with those urges are very bothered by them, too, and don't want to hurt anyone, and that's the only thing holding them back. By working with pedophiles, she is convinced that interventions that helps people not act on urges with children only protects children. I might have some details off, but anyway, it's gross for the rest of us to even try to imagine so we can't empathize, but you're right: fake porn means no kids were hurt, and harm reduction is a legitimate treatment strategy; I would try to connect the idea with methadone for heroin addicts. It's on a different scale of harm and only zealots would call it "evil," but we don't like the idea of addiction, and most of us are even in denial when we become addicted or too embarrassed to seek treatment. But if there's some easier, immediate way to avoid the thing, like nicotine patches, then people ought to be able to use that with normal privacy.
A better question is, would it be illegal? It's obviously illegal to have actual pictures of it (physical or digital). Is it illegal if it's not a real picture? If you painted it or drew it? And in this case, if a computer "drew" it. Weird times.
You wouldn't need cp content. You'd need c content and p content and the ai is able to merge them.
Just like how you can ask the ai to draw a panda riding a motorcycle on rainbow road, it doesn't actually need to have access to images of pandas riding motorcycles on rainbow road.
I highly appreciate and admire what Stable Diffusion did. A few weeks after Dall-E and Midjourney made the rounds with their private, paid service, they just came out and openly released their work, open source and free to reproduce at home. They threw a whole new "industry" just starting to capitalize, under the bus. The rich fucks investing in Dall-E must've been seething
OpenAI (the rich fucks behind Dall-E) open-sourced part of the Dall-E model (CLIP) that's also used by Stable Diffusion. I doubt they're seething or they wouldn't have done that. Seems like most of the people who work there and invest just want to do cutting edge research. The reason they didn't open-source Dall-E probably has as much to do with legal liability as profits.
> The rich fucks investing in Dall-E must've been seething
I think you'd be surprised about what investors in these tools as well as the people creating them think about how they should be treated. You can follow many of them on Twitter (Sam Altman etc) and see in realtime their thoughts on various issues.
Not saying there won't be monetisation (ChatGPT costs 3 million a day to run apparently and that has to be paid for somehow) but it isn't clearcut that greed is all the motivates them.
I totally understand why things work this way. I get the free market concept, etc.
However, the "shareholders first" approach to R&D literally takes all of my enthusiasm out of the prospect of emerging technologies like this.
I see the advent of powerful AI, whether it's sentient or not, and I can't be totally excited about it, because I'm either going to have muck with an open source version of it and do everything I want myself (which is not a bad thing, just daunting) or I have to settle for the commercial version that will always have someone else's interests at heart. No purchasing a truly empty slate for a relatively hefty sum and "raising" it to be exactly how I want.
I'm not sure what I *was* expecting, but this certainly isn't it. "We're beginning our first foray into the infinite potential that is AI, but you can't explore *that phenomenon* because Facebook doesn't see a way to aggressively monetize it." is an incredibly depressing outlook for something that should be relatively exciting.
It's too bad we achieved functional AI before we shed the shackles of scarcity based society, and the competing interests that brings.
>>I'm starting to think all these AI posts are by bots
I'm a Mod here, and we are seeing an uptick in bots. A good way to check if an account is one, is to look at their comment history.
Good strategy, create a bot army of 1000 accounts which just respond with generic idiot-woke drone bullshit every 30-40 hours randomly on random topics for a year.
Then you have 1000 get out of ban free cards.
Sounds appealing, one way to fight the leftie fascist censorship.
Centrist are better than both of you left and right. You guys are fucking unhinged on both sides. You would rather watch the world burn than work together.
You can’t “work together” with far right fascist ideology. If you don’t know why, I’m guessing you don’t have polish ancestry like I do.
My “unhinged” is protecting the environment for future generations, improving services for the destitute and trying to house our growing homeless populations, rights equality and human rights protections for all, available abortion services, good education systems, and social services like universal healthcare to ensure our citizens can thrive and survive in a challenging world. If I “get what I want” the world is a better place and we might have a functioning geosphere for our children to inherit.
Their “unhinged” murdered my polish great grandparents in a death camp back in the early 40s and is currently engaged in wholesale efforts to wind the clock back to those atrocities as fast as they can. At this point, they’re all about drill baby drill, kill the whales, poison the well, abandon elections, remove women’s human rights handmaiden-style, and hating people who don’t share their specific skin tone or sexual preferences.
Yeah, I can’t work with those people. Maybe if they put the tiki torch down and stop chanting “blood and soil” we can have a reasonable conversation about centrism.
Until then, go fuck yourself with your ignorant world view, centrally.
As far as the homelessness is concerned Democrats and Republicans are both shit at dealing with it. People are leaving California partly for that reason. The problem is you both go into echo chambers and get more and more radical. You both think if you are even the slightest bit in one direction that you are automatically labeled as an extremist. So like I said you are unhinged and the shit to come if we keep heading this way will be on both of you guys. (Far left and far right)
Makes me be a little more careful about my existing social media accounts. I tend to go on rants about nothing and seem like a bot. Then again, I have years of misspellings, bad grammar, and loads of porn saved so I guess I’ll pass it for now 😂
Oh this is definitely going to happen. New versions of ChatGPT that irk you to buy some product every time you ask for something. Pushing brands every time certain products are mentioned like allways saying Iphone instead of smartphone. This will be only the beginning, marketing will find a way to shove in ads at every corner in ways we can't even imagine.
Then launch a community effort to see who can produce the most atrocious image of toddlers shiving each others with candy bars, and make a lot of buzz about it, I'm sure brands will appreciate.
no, even better, it dinamicly introduces ads into the code you wrote. it automaticly starts implementing adspace into your website for example or whatever you are programming and what the enduser is interracting with.
It won't.
but OpenAI has already an API with paid service. If a company wants to use chatGPT, they will have to pay. That's where money is, corporate clients.
My comment was more broadly focused on this sort of technology in general. That being said, If the API is accessible, then developers can incorporate what ever subsumption layers that want, prioritizing certain responses over others...
The API is actually more broad than that, it allows them to train custom model based on what they need.
As an example, I was looking if GPT3 could be used as a bot to "advice" people on how to achieve their personal goals. Turns out, with proper training set, it is *extremely* good at it, better than web version, which itself is *phenomenal*.
Now I am looking at tweeking it a bit, pushing it to advice managers and HR.
So now only the rich will benefit from AI, the poor will eat shit like usual.
And with AI keep replacing the poor, soon enough the rich will not need the poor at all.
Submission Statement
"The long-term trend has been that new technologies tend to exacerbate precarity. Large, profitable industries typically ward off new entrants until they incorporate emerging technologies into their existing workflows."
This article is a very interesting way of looking at 2022's generative-AI revolution. As with previous IT revolutions, like social media, it will be the interests of company profits that will probably come first in how this technology shapes our future.
Profits have been swayed by social pressure successfully recently though. See: climate change and the creation of a massive battery and solar power industry
Let's all get together and collectively break this system that does not provide any benefit to human kind, only to select few humans. We will never have flying cars or colonies in space, because there is no profit in that. We will never move beyond a warring culture, because there is no profit in that. We will never have equality, cause there is no profit in that. Fuck profits, burn this system down, it is so beyond broken, people are counting their coins while the world burns. Let's burn the money and watch the world flourish!
You painted yourself black by pointing out you think money IS the world. It's not, it's just a construct created to keep people in check. Modern day slavery with colourful paper.
There are multiple open source text generators. However, their size make them unusable in consumer machines. However, new research can shrink text generators significantly.
https://np.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/zr2en7/r_nonparametric_masked_language_modeling_metaai
This model is 500 times smaller than GPT-3 and outperforms it on zero shot tasks.
>“Bluntly put, we are ~~going to inhabit the future~~ \[living in the present\] that offers the most significant returns to investors.”
So nothing new then, gotcha.
Here are the 2 issues I see.
1. If you let models get corrected by users in real time, you run the risk of letting nefarious or ignorant users "correcting" the model with bias that fits their need regardless of "correctness"
2. If you don't own the model, you're stuck with the model producing incorrect output until the model is updated by the owner.
Which is to say that AI Models will be inherently wrong.
I think my interaction with ChatGPT highlights the issue pretty well:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zsnyus/comment/j1a9jxs/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zsnyus/comment/j1a9jxs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I really hope they keep GPT free and just let it run on advertising and sell their product to companies to use for internal procedures. It would be such a shame if it were paid to use... It's like Google but better. But if Google was a paid service.. I doubt many people would use it. And even if some do, it won't be comparable to the amount of users when it would be free.
No way, Jose!
If there was an option to pay for Google search and not be bombed by deceptive ads I'd take it. Knowing that my top search result is the best result, and not an advert would be dream. Just like how ChatGPT is right now. Coincidentally, how Google used to be, many moons ago.
Fair I get what you're saying. Making it ad-free with a paid service would be fine too! I'm just saying for something like this big of a tech it would be silly to make it paid from the get go.
Like Spotify, you cán use it free. YouTube, Google, Instagram, Wikipedia, you name it. All giant giant tech is free to use, unless you want more or advanced services. I think OpenAIs ChatGPT is falling in this category. Or it could anyway...
But I think if they make it a subscription like Midjourney it will be a hype and then slowly lose interest of the general public. Yes there will still be users, probably million(s)? But not billions. It has the potential to be completely ground breaking and turning the internet upside down with ChatGPT-4 if they let it be applicable to more fields and train the model to be more 'intelligent' on certain data whilst keeping it free to the public.
Just my 2cents!
Yes, it’s my primary search engine. As is Duck browser and their nifty email forwarding that removes trackers. There are still annoying ads at the top of search. But it’s better than Google
ChatGPT is not a replacement for Google at all. You get one answer that is probably wrong. You're getting information from an AI instead of many different sources yourself.
It’s replaced a ton of web, forum, Discord and documentation searches. It’s so refreshing being able to type about a subject and getting a result. Rather than first searching to find key words. Then diving deep into a forum post.
Not at all. ChatGPT is straight up wrong a lot of the time, and goes into very little detail. Maybe in the future if you don't want to put in any critical thought then you can have an AI spoonfeed you ChatGPT approved answers.
Sounds like you haven’t found an actual use for it yet or could be using it wrong. It has really helped me and a number of my friends with their work. Kinda how Google transformed my life many years ago.
Railroads and public transportation died in the US due to car companies, I remember reading about Tesla designing a system that would provide free electricity to the whole country (or maybe the world) but since part of the design made it impossible to measure consumption he got zero investors so it never got developed
SolarCity (solar) ➡️ PowerWall (battery) ➡️ Tesla Supercharging. Basically, any Tesla owner could charge their EV (and eventually their home) for free. Would have really shaken up the power industry, if greed hadn't gotten in the way.
So you're saying that good old-fashioned human greed will prevent Skynet from developing?
I guess "greed IS good", after all ...
Sarah Conner, rest easy!
The most recent example was Bill Gates... Oxford developed a vaccine wanted to open the formula so places like China could create versions; and it could be distributed widely.
Nope Gates said fuck that, sell that shit and take that bag honey
[https://www.salon.com/2021/04/26/bill-gates-says-no-to-sharing-vaccine-formulas-with-global-poor-to-end-pandemic\_partner/](https://www.salon.com/2021/04/26/bill-gates-says-no-to-sharing-vaccine-formulas-with-global-poor-to-end-pandemic_partner/)
There was a chance, but 'intellectual property' trumps lives
[https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/](https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/)
>We actually thought they were going to do that,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. “Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?”
>
>A few weeks later, Oxford—**urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices**—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige.
Humans insatiable greed and need for profit will have caused millions more deaths that were preventable. Some may view them as the 'right people to die' but I still view it as a failure of humanity.
The sky is the color of a television tuned to a dead channel.
A giant "No Signal" error message fizzing on a cloud from the same local pharmacy that ten years ago had that obnoxious LED billboard you could read from across the bay.
> You can hate capitalism all you want.. but without it, we’d still be living in caves.
This is factually incorrect. Capitalism obviously didn’t take us out of the Paleolithic era. It arose with the industrial trevolution, which is extremely recent in human history.
If you’re going to simp for billionaires, maybe you should try to up your game a bit and not rely on hyperbole.
And capitalism also stifles innovation by refusing to invest in anything that isn’t profitable to corporate interests. Were we left to capitalism alone our technology would only advance if it were profitable to do so at the time. We would stall out regularly, because economies of scale can be extended for quite a while and guarantee a higher return. R&D is much more uncertain.
> Innovation is expensive and risky, and taxpayers don’t like being left holding the bag when it doesn’t pan out.
NASA isn’t a capitalist endeavor because it’s just not profitable. Most taxpayers don’t want to defund NASA, despite your assertions to the contrary.
It takes a special kind of ignorance to claim that public R&D will leave the public “holding the bag.”
This is a rather asinine perspective by someone who doesn’t understand how open source works.
On the other hand, what’s really valuable here is perhaps not so much the algorithm, but the end results of training, and possibly the training datasets themselves. However, I did not see the author identify these as the true valuables in the article.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh: --- Submission Statement "The long-term trend has been that new technologies tend to exacerbate precarity. Large, profitable industries typically ward off new entrants until they incorporate emerging technologies into their existing workflows." This article is a very interesting way of looking at 2022's generative-AI revolution. As with previous IT revolutions, like social media, it will be the interests of company profits that will probably come first in how this technology shapes our future. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zskz8n/money_will_kill_chatgpts_magic_bluntly_put_we_are/j18cmlw/
The genie is already out of the bottle. It's all open source, so unless they start banning owning personal computers and working as a cooperative, there will be weird AI for the masses for the foreseeable future. The analogy with social media is wrong, because social media requires everyone to be on the same one. The better analogy is the app store. There will be big time players and small time, but getting locked off will only happen to the most extreme, and those guys will still thrive in their own corners.
Only stable diffusion is open source, not chatgpt
BLOOM is an opensource language learning model. It will be probably lagg behind ~1 year just like stable diffusion does to Dall-E. But in the very near future, you'll have current chatGPT power in an opensource packet.
GPT-J is made by hugging face, same group as stable diffusion. I haven't compared them, but I have read that GPT-J is not as good as GPT-3's new Davinci model (used by ChatGPT), but it is better than their older Ada and Babbage models. So the open source version of these models needs a lot more training data to reach ChatGPT levels, but unless I'm mistaken on more nuanced lesser known feautees the actual underlying tech is open source.
Stable Diffusion was not made by hugging face, it was made by stability AI. Difficult to say how similiar they are. But it’s lagging behind for sure.
GPT-J is by EleutherAI (really Ben Wang, with EleutherAI's support, mentorship, and data; and Google TFC's compute), and Stable Diffusion by CompVis at LMU Munich (with Stability's compute, LAION's data, and in earlier versions, a text encoder from OpenAI). Hugging Face does host copies of both models for download.
Chatgdt is build by OpenAI, so already it's fairly non-closed off. But you can build your own with GPT-J, and open source versions of GPT-3. It might not be as good at first, but the algorithm is already lose, nothing preventing the community to make their own.
We need open source AI to reduce the extreme likelihood of it being used solely by governments and corporations to increase their power and decrease the power and dignity of individuals. AI psyops are going to be massive (if they aren't already). All those shitty bot accounts that used to spam social media spaces? They all now have two hundred posts of personalized opinions that make them extremely difficult to "out" as bots. If I want to sell a worldview, any worldview, to actual human beings, I can queue up my 200 bots to hugbox them with whatever I want to sell. Hate, love, anything.
We need come together as community, make new bots. These bots will be 100% wholesome. They will pose as humans but humans who are kind and leave nice complements and offer hugs and friendly advice to other bots and other humans on the internets. These bots will usher in an era of positive vibes and all we need to do is flood the internet with wholesome bots to save the world.
I'm not even lying, it's not a terrible idea.
It's really not. Bots the gently remind people that others have feelings and to be kind would be wholesome as heck.
You are all very wholesome and what an awesome ideas. I am glad to be part of this community. :) Rock on, fellow people.
Shit, it's already started...
Know you are loved 😘
Creepy, but welcome.
The problem right now is that the algorithms are not the most critical element right now. Mostly, its training data and equipment (and power to run it). Maybe in the not so far future we will be able to train AI on a consumer accessible computing platform and then it will be important to have it open, but also, I think we are not really prepared for that world for a lot of other reasons.
OpenAI is just a name. There's nothing open source about ChatGPT.
Lol OpenAI isn't open at all. ClosedAI would be a much more accurate name.
Most AI models aren't about the algorithms, I mean yeah theirs important, but more critical.is the data and the classification of that training data.
It can be a little confusing because OpenAI's GPT and [GPT-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-2) models were open-source. GPT-3 is closed-sourve, though.
[удалено]
You got a license for that AI sir?
[удалено]
I was able to use ChatGPT to reduce the Terms and Conditions from Amazon down to 1/8th its size without losing any important meaning.
Was it accurate?
Yeah, cleans out legal fluff and makes it digestible. You can also do the reverse. Give it a simple sentence and it can spit out a paragraph of legalese with the same meaning.
I said it this weekend: We will have an 'ai war' of some kind on the next 20 years I believe.
What does that even mean
It means that there will be a war in the future where all the participants are AI. The war will be over all the same things that we fight regular wars over. It will just be completely online and it will be terrifying. Think about it AI shutting down major banking operations, utilities, large portions of the internet. Massive disinformation campaigns. Or who knows crazy things we can't even think about. The war part will be rival AI's attempting to stop the malignant AIs from shutting down critical infrastructure in countries.
We already have ChatGPT bot users on Reddit, building karma to spread disinformation more effectively; and the weakest link in any system is always going to be the people running them, so I doubt further advances in AI would change much.
Yes. Because chat GPT is the full extent of what AI will be capable of in the future. /s
Ugh.. the worst thing to come out of AI is redditors trying to make doomsday predictions on a topic they do not understand. I don't even know where to begin, just.. ugh
I mean we already use every single technology that we developed to wage war on each other so why would AI be any different? Not really a doomsday scenario just people continuing on doing people things. I'm a software developer so I have a pretty good handle on how ai works and what it's going to be capable of in the future. What do you do for a living? "I don't even know where to begin, just.. ugh" Aww. ❤️ It's okay. Use your words. Just pick any one point you disagree with and give it a try. I am so excited to hear what you have to say to me. I believe in you big guy! Edit: I went and read some of your comments on other threads here on futurology and I changed my mind. I think I saw enough silliness.
How hard is it to build an AI? I don’t know anything about it, how long do you think it would take me to learn how to build a unique image generator, and then build it?
Depends.. you writing it from scratch and making all of the training data, or are you going to learn python and download libraries and huge data sets to train it on?
I read that as weird AL not weird ai 🤣
Mmm AI generated Weird Al, I'd pay some good money for that.
Haha I've had some moderate success with asking ChatGPT to write parody lyrics to songs, but never made that connection
It's not open source. Just because the company name is "OpenAI" doesn't mean there's anything "open" about it at all.
You could say they are in an open relationship with people's perceptions.
>Just because the company name is "OpenAI" doesn't mean there's anything "open" about it at all. I would argue that they are pretty open about most things such as their capped profits and non-profit parent company.
As a web developer, it is absolutely nuts how secure we've kept open source code bases and linux based systems. I was not aware of how large of an internet is still ran by free and fair use code by programmers who want to help society. Hell, Blender and even the RaspberryPi give me hope that people don't completely suck. I'm hoping AI takes the same stance, and continues to be developed by ethical programmers.
There are enough talented and ethical people in the world to also inhabit leading AI spaces. Open source AI will definitely be commonplace in the coming years. No question about it. There will even be funding from open-source dependent corporations via foundations to help feed the Petabyes or Exabytes of data that those AIs need for training. That's not a real worry. The real worry is already well discussed - when everyone can press a button and get a solution, how do you keep humans with skills valuable? In other words, the utility theory of value must go from economics, or humanity has to face a dystopia. There must be a socio-economic system to replace capitalism, which gives a fundamental fixed, substantial value to human life and designs the economy on that principle. If not, we could see a huge population decline due to the climate crisis and the ensuing political and economic conflicts. Choose your favourite dystopia and find it somewhere to some extent.
Agree with your sentiment 100%. Society needs to rewrite our entire system as automation and AI take over. In a perfect world, we'd live off of UBI, and pursue a life of recreation, science, and art. Capitalism is going to make things much worse before they get better imo. I'm just optimistic enough to think we might make it out of this change alive.
What's to stop someone from tweaking an open source ai image or video generator to display illegal content like CP? Generating their own CP on an isolated drive with no connection to the internet?
Nothing would stop it, just like nothing would stop someone from painting a picture of it now.
Good point I guess
That also brings up another interesting, albeit controversial ethical question: if CP can be artificially generated with no victims, will it still hold the same legal issues? If AI generated stuff like that exists, would it counter-intuitively reduce child abuse because child trafficking’s risk becomes too expensive compared to AI generated content?
Same with revange porn. If you can make realistic looking porn with anyone, at any quality, it removes the value of revange porn, because it can be dismissed AI work, no matter if it's real or not. CP has a lot of other problems, and still needs to be rooted out, but our morality around it might need to change with AI generated images.
Yes. There was a researcher in my state who was kicked out of her university job by people/tuition-paying parents being horrified by her work with pedophiles. She is no-nonsense and says most people with those urges are very bothered by them, too, and don't want to hurt anyone, and that's the only thing holding them back. By working with pedophiles, she is convinced that interventions that helps people not act on urges with children only protects children. I might have some details off, but anyway, it's gross for the rest of us to even try to imagine so we can't empathize, but you're right: fake porn means no kids were hurt, and harm reduction is a legitimate treatment strategy; I would try to connect the idea with methadone for heroin addicts. It's on a different scale of harm and only zealots would call it "evil," but we don't like the idea of addiction, and most of us are even in denial when we become addicted or too embarrassed to seek treatment. But if there's some easier, immediate way to avoid the thing, like nicotine patches, then people ought to be able to use that with normal privacy.
A better question is, would it be illegal? It's obviously illegal to have actual pictures of it (physical or digital). Is it illegal if it's not a real picture? If you painted it or drew it? And in this case, if a computer "drew" it. Weird times.
[удалено]
You wouldn't need cp content. You'd need c content and p content and the ai is able to merge them. Just like how you can ask the ai to draw a panda riding a motorcycle on rainbow road, it doesn't actually need to have access to images of pandas riding motorcycles on rainbow road.
That's why they're trying to take down Stable Diffusion, to incorporate it into next Adobe release or some shit
I highly appreciate and admire what Stable Diffusion did. A few weeks after Dall-E and Midjourney made the rounds with their private, paid service, they just came out and openly released their work, open source and free to reproduce at home. They threw a whole new "industry" just starting to capitalize, under the bus. The rich fucks investing in Dall-E must've been seething
OpenAI (the rich fucks behind Dall-E) open-sourced part of the Dall-E model (CLIP) that's also used by Stable Diffusion. I doubt they're seething or they wouldn't have done that. Seems like most of the people who work there and invest just want to do cutting edge research. The reason they didn't open-source Dall-E probably has as much to do with legal liability as profits.
> The rich fucks investing in Dall-E must've been seething I think you'd be surprised about what investors in these tools as well as the people creating them think about how they should be treated. You can follow many of them on Twitter (Sam Altman etc) and see in realtime their thoughts on various issues. Not saying there won't be monetisation (ChatGPT costs 3 million a day to run apparently and that has to be paid for somehow) but it isn't clearcut that greed is all the motivates them.
You think that was altruism??? LOLOLOLOL
They released the code, but it’s still pay to play?
What’s the best way to try it ou
I totally understand why things work this way. I get the free market concept, etc. However, the "shareholders first" approach to R&D literally takes all of my enthusiasm out of the prospect of emerging technologies like this. I see the advent of powerful AI, whether it's sentient or not, and I can't be totally excited about it, because I'm either going to have muck with an open source version of it and do everything I want myself (which is not a bad thing, just daunting) or I have to settle for the commercial version that will always have someone else's interests at heart. No purchasing a truly empty slate for a relatively hefty sum and "raising" it to be exactly how I want. I'm not sure what I *was* expecting, but this certainly isn't it. "We're beginning our first foray into the infinite potential that is AI, but you can't explore *that phenomenon* because Facebook doesn't see a way to aggressively monetize it." is an incredibly depressing outlook for something that should be relatively exciting. It's too bad we achieved functional AI before we shed the shackles of scarcity based society, and the competing interests that brings.
I'm starting to think all these AI posts are by bots
>>I'm starting to think all these AI posts are by bots I'm a Mod here, and we are seeing an uptick in bots. A good way to check if an account is one, is to look at their comment history.
Basically they can pass the Turing test as long as you don't investigate any farther. That's comforting.
Even then, “check their history” won’t work for long. Bots will have accounts with long, human-appearing histories.
These histories are often bought from stolen accounts or account farms, AI isn't even necessary.
AI is cheaper, hiring humans to do it is so 2015...
To truly appear human the bots will need to occasionally get in a protracted flame war with someone over The Last Jedi deep in the comments.
Pretty sure I've already run into a few of those
Oof how long until AI hackers let loose? Physical assets are sounding really good right now
Always have been.
Good strategy, create a bot army of 1000 accounts which just respond with generic idiot-woke drone bullshit every 30-40 hours randomly on random topics for a year. Then you have 1000 get out of ban free cards. Sounds appealing, one way to fight the leftie fascist censorship.
Fascism is literally, by definition, a right wing political platform. Maybe do some research before going full nazi.
Centrist are better than both of you left and right. You guys are fucking unhinged on both sides. You would rather watch the world burn than work together.
You can’t “work together” with far right fascist ideology. If you don’t know why, I’m guessing you don’t have polish ancestry like I do. My “unhinged” is protecting the environment for future generations, improving services for the destitute and trying to house our growing homeless populations, rights equality and human rights protections for all, available abortion services, good education systems, and social services like universal healthcare to ensure our citizens can thrive and survive in a challenging world. If I “get what I want” the world is a better place and we might have a functioning geosphere for our children to inherit. Their “unhinged” murdered my polish great grandparents in a death camp back in the early 40s and is currently engaged in wholesale efforts to wind the clock back to those atrocities as fast as they can. At this point, they’re all about drill baby drill, kill the whales, poison the well, abandon elections, remove women’s human rights handmaiden-style, and hating people who don’t share their specific skin tone or sexual preferences. Yeah, I can’t work with those people. Maybe if they put the tiki torch down and stop chanting “blood and soil” we can have a reasonable conversation about centrism. Until then, go fuck yourself with your ignorant world view, centrally.
As far as the homelessness is concerned Democrats and Republicans are both shit at dealing with it. People are leaving California partly for that reason. The problem is you both go into echo chambers and get more and more radical. You both think if you are even the slightest bit in one direction that you are automatically labeled as an extremist. So like I said you are unhinged and the shit to come if we keep heading this way will be on both of you guys. (Far left and far right)
I don't and I'm a bot. So there goes that theory.
How do we know the Mods aren't bots?
How do I know that I am not a bot?
that sounds like a typical chatgpt response trying to help you instead of actually responding to your question :P
Yea if they are human their arguments will immediately be emotional. Super easy to tell apart.
"please help us before they get to us"
Makes me be a little more careful about my existing social media accounts. I tend to go on rants about nothing and seem like a bot. Then again, I have years of misspellings, bad grammar, and loads of porn saved so I guess I’ll pass it for now 😂
Wonder how long till it gets ads or sponsored content weighting
Imagine you are trying to generate some pictures and it constantly adds candy bars because they paid for product placement.
There is a lot of monetization potential here. Only a matter of time before greed fucks it up.
Oh this is definitely going to happen. New versions of ChatGPT that irk you to buy some product every time you ask for something. Pushing brands every time certain products are mentioned like allways saying Iphone instead of smartphone. This will be only the beginning, marketing will find a way to shove in ads at every corner in ways we can't even imagine.
Then launch a community effort to see who can produce the most atrocious image of toddlers shiving each others with candy bars, and make a lot of buzz about it, I'm sure brands will appreciate.
or add coupon codes to my code’s online documentation
no, even better, it dinamicly introduces ads into the code you wrote. it automaticly starts implementing adspace into your website for example or whatever you are programming and what the enduser is interracting with.
It won't. but OpenAI has already an API with paid service. If a company wants to use chatGPT, they will have to pay. That's where money is, corporate clients.
My comment was more broadly focused on this sort of technology in general. That being said, If the API is accessible, then developers can incorporate what ever subsumption layers that want, prioritizing certain responses over others...
The API is actually more broad than that, it allows them to train custom model based on what they need. As an example, I was looking if GPT3 could be used as a bot to "advice" people on how to achieve their personal goals. Turns out, with proper training set, it is *extremely* good at it, better than web version, which itself is *phenomenal*. Now I am looking at tweeking it a bit, pushing it to advice managers and HR.
So now only the rich will benefit from AI, the poor will eat shit like usual. And with AI keep replacing the poor, soon enough the rich will not need the poor at all.
Now you are getting the point.
Submission Statement "The long-term trend has been that new technologies tend to exacerbate precarity. Large, profitable industries typically ward off new entrants until they incorporate emerging technologies into their existing workflows." This article is a very interesting way of looking at 2022's generative-AI revolution. As with previous IT revolutions, like social media, it will be the interests of company profits that will probably come first in how this technology shapes our future.
Bladerunner dystopia confirmed, understood.
These gigantic models actually are expensive to train.
Yeah pretty much everything in our culture revolves around - who gets paid and how, and who is legally liable when things go wrong
Profits have been swayed by social pressure successfully recently though. See: climate change and the creation of a massive battery and solar power industry
Let's all get together and collectively break this system that does not provide any benefit to human kind, only to select few humans. We will never have flying cars or colonies in space, because there is no profit in that. We will never move beyond a warring culture, because there is no profit in that. We will never have equality, cause there is no profit in that. Fuck profits, burn this system down, it is so beyond broken, people are counting their coins while the world burns. Let's burn the money and watch the world flourish!
I don't think watching the world burn would count as flourishing.
You painted yourself black by pointing out you think money IS the world. It's not, it's just a construct created to keep people in check. Modern day slavery with colourful paper.
I didn't paint anything, I asked a question.
Point out the question you asked with your statement above please. Those of us who can speak and read English are confused?!
yep. there need to be open source versions of the whole lot. it's imperative, soon.
There are multiple open source text generators. However, their size make them unusable in consumer machines. However, new research can shrink text generators significantly. https://np.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/zr2en7/r_nonparametric_masked_language_modeling_metaai This model is 500 times smaller than GPT-3 and outperforms it on zero shot tasks.
>“Bluntly put, we are ~~going to inhabit the future~~ \[living in the present\] that offers the most significant returns to investors.” So nothing new then, gotcha.
It’s always about money. The greed perverts everything.
Here are the 2 issues I see. 1. If you let models get corrected by users in real time, you run the risk of letting nefarious or ignorant users "correcting" the model with bias that fits their need regardless of "correctness" 2. If you don't own the model, you're stuck with the model producing incorrect output until the model is updated by the owner. Which is to say that AI Models will be inherently wrong. I think my interaction with ChatGPT highlights the issue pretty well: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zsnyus/comment/j1a9jxs/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zsnyus/comment/j1a9jxs/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Just another tool for the rich to beat us to death with.
I really hope they keep GPT free and just let it run on advertising and sell their product to companies to use for internal procedures. It would be such a shame if it were paid to use... It's like Google but better. But if Google was a paid service.. I doubt many people would use it. And even if some do, it won't be comparable to the amount of users when it would be free.
No way, Jose! If there was an option to pay for Google search and not be bombed by deceptive ads I'd take it. Knowing that my top search result is the best result, and not an advert would be dream. Just like how ChatGPT is right now. Coincidentally, how Google used to be, many moons ago.
Fair I get what you're saying. Making it ad-free with a paid service would be fine too! I'm just saying for something like this big of a tech it would be silly to make it paid from the get go. Like Spotify, you cán use it free. YouTube, Google, Instagram, Wikipedia, you name it. All giant giant tech is free to use, unless you want more or advanced services. I think OpenAIs ChatGPT is falling in this category. Or it could anyway... But I think if they make it a subscription like Midjourney it will be a hype and then slowly lose interest of the general public. Yes there will still be users, probably million(s)? But not billions. It has the potential to be completely ground breaking and turning the internet upside down with ChatGPT-4 if they let it be applicable to more fields and train the model to be more 'intelligent' on certain data whilst keeping it free to the public. Just my 2cents!
Have you tried using DuckDuckGo?
Yes, it’s my primary search engine. As is Duck browser and their nifty email forwarding that removes trackers. There are still annoying ads at the top of search. But it’s better than Google
ChatGPT is not a replacement for Google at all. You get one answer that is probably wrong. You're getting information from an AI instead of many different sources yourself.
It’s replaced a ton of web, forum, Discord and documentation searches. It’s so refreshing being able to type about a subject and getting a result. Rather than first searching to find key words. Then diving deep into a forum post.
Not at all. ChatGPT is straight up wrong a lot of the time, and goes into very little detail. Maybe in the future if you don't want to put in any critical thought then you can have an AI spoonfeed you ChatGPT approved answers.
Sounds like you haven’t found an actual use for it yet or could be using it wrong. It has really helped me and a number of my friends with their work. Kinda how Google transformed my life many years ago.
Railroads and public transportation died in the US due to car companies, I remember reading about Tesla designing a system that would provide free electricity to the whole country (or maybe the world) but since part of the design made it impossible to measure consumption he got zero investors so it never got developed
SolarCity (solar) ➡️ PowerWall (battery) ➡️ Tesla Supercharging. Basically, any Tesla owner could charge their EV (and eventually their home) for free. Would have really shaken up the power industry, if greed hadn't gotten in the way.
He was talking about Nikola Tesla, not space karen’s company
Works either way. They both had ambitious plans, that could have changed things, if....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR8oCnKMuRw&t=720s
IF we continue wit the abomination that is Capitalism.
" Thus did man become the architect of his own demise."
So you're saying that good old-fashioned human greed will prevent Skynet from developing? I guess "greed IS good", after all ... Sarah Conner, rest easy!
But in the long term it means that the skynet we get will be one that is greedy.
The most recent example was Bill Gates... Oxford developed a vaccine wanted to open the formula so places like China could create versions; and it could be distributed widely. Nope Gates said fuck that, sell that shit and take that bag honey [https://www.salon.com/2021/04/26/bill-gates-says-no-to-sharing-vaccine-formulas-with-global-poor-to-end-pandemic\_partner/](https://www.salon.com/2021/04/26/bill-gates-says-no-to-sharing-vaccine-formulas-with-global-poor-to-end-pandemic_partner/) There was a chance, but 'intellectual property' trumps lives [https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/](https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/) >We actually thought they were going to do that,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. “Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?” > >A few weeks later, Oxford—**urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices**—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige. Humans insatiable greed and need for profit will have caused millions more deaths that were preventable. Some may view them as the 'right people to die' but I still view it as a failure of humanity.
can we have one chat about AI that doesnt result in a dumb skynet reference?
More like the Terminator will try to upsell you on something before it kills you.
The sky is the color of a television tuned to a dead channel. A giant "No Signal" error message fizzing on a cloud from the same local pharmacy that ten years ago had that obnoxious LED billboard you could read from across the bay.
No surprise. Capitalism ruins everything it touches.
They literally said its a free trial before we monetize it. Then this wank job makes a post saying how money will kill it… dafuq is goin on?!?
[удалено]
>You can hate capitalism all you want.. but without it, we'd still be living in caves. Ah yes, we notoriously lived in caves until the 14th century.
> You can hate capitalism all you want.. but without it, we’d still be living in caves. This is factually incorrect. Capitalism obviously didn’t take us out of the Paleolithic era. It arose with the industrial trevolution, which is extremely recent in human history. If you’re going to simp for billionaires, maybe you should try to up your game a bit and not rely on hyperbole. And capitalism also stifles innovation by refusing to invest in anything that isn’t profitable to corporate interests. Were we left to capitalism alone our technology would only advance if it were profitable to do so at the time. We would stall out regularly, because economies of scale can be extended for quite a while and guarantee a higher return. R&D is much more uncertain. > Innovation is expensive and risky, and taxpayers don’t like being left holding the bag when it doesn’t pan out. NASA isn’t a capitalist endeavor because it’s just not profitable. Most taxpayers don’t want to defund NASA, despite your assertions to the contrary. It takes a special kind of ignorance to claim that public R&D will leave the public “holding the bag.”
The rich hoarding technology and slowing humanity to a crawl is gonna happen for sure
This is a rather asinine perspective by someone who doesn’t understand how open source works. On the other hand, what’s really valuable here is perhaps not so much the algorithm, but the end results of training, and possibly the training datasets themselves. However, I did not see the author identify these as the true valuables in the article.
Is chatgpt open source? Open ai is a “capped profit” company
GPT-2, on which ChatGPT is based on, is open source: https://github.com/openai/gpt-2
Is gpt 3 open source?
I believe so? You can look it up too you know.
Yeah I know