The headline was confusing and reading the article doesn't really clear things up. I don't think Gill is imagining the same sort of "pretend person" that I would want out of AGI. What I want is a personal assistant that knows me extremely well, is able to tirelessly work on my behalf, and has a personality tailored to my needs and interests. It should be general enough to understand me on a personal level and do a good job anticipating what I want.
knows me extremely well, is able to tirelessly work on my behalf, and has a personality tailored to my needs and interests.
Those may still be ANI applications.
Today's LLM's marketed as the future of AGI are more focused on knowing a little bit about everything. Including a little bit about how MRIs work and a summary of memes floating around a parody subreddit. I fail to see how LLM's as they are trained today will know you extremely well and give you a personality tailored to your needs. I also think commercial interests of big tech are pitted against your desire for "tirelessly work[ing] on my behalf".
What I want is a personal assistant that knows me extremely well, is able to tirelessly work on my behalf, and has a personality tailored to my needs and interests.
and you're not concerned at all about this information being compromised and used against you?
Of course I'm concerned about it. That's why I would take measures to ensure the information is well protected. I already run local LLMs and image generators for most of the stuff I use AI for, both to ensure that I have control over what sort of outputs they generate and to keep any inputs I run through them private. An AGI assistant like what I'm describing is something I would want to run on my own hardware too.
Yes, I do. Perhaps not the current generation of hardware, but the chip manufacturers are currently throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into designing the next generation of AI-specialized hardware so I expect the next generation to be very impressive. The software has also been getting more efficient, making better use of the hardware that already exists. I've been experimenting a lot with it.
I always ask myself who will buy the products these companies produce if all the workers have been fired. Maybe inflation is just the natural ramp up to McDonald's charging 5,000 dollars for automated chicken nuggets when there are only billionaire left with money lol.
Freeing humans from toil is a good idea, just like the industrial revolution was. We just need our system to adapt and change with this new reality, AGI and universal basic income means we could live in something like the society in star trek.
I've advised past clients to avoid reducing headcount and instead be looking at how they can scale up productivity.
It's honestly pretty bizarre to me that so many people think this is going to result in the same amount of work with less people. Maybe in the short term a number of companies will go that way, but not long after they'll be out of business.
Long term, the companies that are going to survive the coming tides of change are going to be the ones that aggressively do more and try to grow and expand what they do as much as possible.
Effective monopolies are going out the window, and the diminishing returns of large corporations are going to be going head to head with a legion of new entrants with orders of magnitude more efficiency and ambition.
This is definitely one of those periods in time where the focus on a quarterly return is going to turn out to be a cyanide pill.
Short term is all that matters. Business fails? Start another one, and now you have a bunch of people that you made unemployed creating downward pressure on labor prices.
No, you have a lot of people you made unemployed competing with you.
This is already what's happening in the video game industry. A ton of people have lost their jobs, and VC money has recently come pouring in trying to flip the displaced talent into the next big success.
And they'll probably do it. A number of the larger publishers are really struggling to succeed with titles that are bombing left and right as a result of poor executive oversight on attempted cash grabs to please the short term market.
Look at Ubisoft's 5-year stock price.
Short term is definitely not all that matters, and it's a rude awakening for those that think it's the case.
Mostly the execs don't care. They've extracted "value" in the form of money and got paid, that's the extent if their ability to look forward. The faster they make that happen the faster they can do it again, probably somewhere else. They don't give a single shit what happens after.
Yeah, and there are a few good lawyers and a few good cops and (probably) a few good politicians too, but we're not talking about the few exceptions here.
Well, we kind of are as the shitty ones tend to fail after time and the good ones continue to succeed, so in a market that's much more competitive because of a force multiplier on labor unlike anything the world has seen there's not going to be much room for the crappy execs for very long.
Bad execs are like mosquitos. They thrive in stagnant waters, but as soon as things get moving they tend to reduce in number.
We've been in a fairly stagnant market since around 2008 for most things with no need for adaptation by large companies.
The large companies that went out of business recently have pretty much all been from financial mismanagement and not product/market fit like Circuit City or Blockbuster from the last time adaptation was needed with those failing to adapt going out of business.
The fatalism on Lemmy is fairly exhausting. The past decade shouldn't be used as a reference point for predicting the next decade. The factors playing into each couldn't be more different.
Commas are too common, we should go with semicolons. And \n and UTF-8 by default. And a header that defines changes from defaults, plus metadata such as data logger model and settings. These are some significant quality-of-life improvements but I'd guess it will take another file extension before that happens.
I am surprised the reason for blocking ads doessn't include making sites somewhat readable. I guess faster loading could be it? But generally it's more of a layout problem than a bandwidth one.
I tend to not use adblockers, or when I do it's on a black list system for worst offenders rather than by default. However, I absolutely refuse tracking, and if it's the only option I go to firefox reader mode immediately.
The usual false dichotomy of "personalised ads or you're killing us!" is not acceptable.
Ad tech IS the tracking, so if you're not blocking ads, you're not actually refusing said tracking. I think you might be conflating cookies with being tracking (they are), but that's only a part of it.
I wonder why ad tech can‘t be „Let‘s show ads that correspond to what‘s being talked about on that website.“ Kinda like what Google suggested with Topics but without following me through the internet.
I mean, we do the same thing, for the same reasons, with our government and defense procurement orders these days. This isn’t that weird. It’s only weird in that they’re clearly cutting themselves off from the best high-volume x86 CPU manufacturers that currently exist, but aside from that, the geopolitical and strategic calculus adds up.
x86 is dying, legacy processing. It's all GPU's and ARM processing now. Apple is leaning hard into it so they set themselves as a leader in AI in the future.
There would never have been any 32-bit versions: no Windows NT, no Windows 95; no Explorer, no Start menu or taskbars. That, in turn, might well have killed off Apple as well. No iPod, no iPhone, no fondleslabs. Twenty-first century computers would be unimaginably different.
It’s definitely fun to think about how things could’ve been different, but personally, it seems pretty silly to think that things today would be “unimaginably different”. Like don’t you think that these paradigms seem intuitive enough that multiple people could’ve independently come up with them?
Among the ways you can do layoffs, this is one of the better ones for sure. People who are kind of checked out already anyway can get a nice paycheck on their way out and start looking for something new, while people who still have something important to get out of the job get the option to stay.
"You can also see it in the new parent (maternity/paternity leave) policies. Male employees can come back to do the same job again, whereas female employees are guaranteed a job when they return, but there is no guarantee it will be the same one they had when they left."
Yeahhhhh I am not a lawyer but I think that might actually be illegal, specifically because of the explicitly different treatment based simply on gender.
Would it still be illegal if it's based on time? Like I'll make this up but suppose their policy was men get 2 weeks paternity leave, but women get 2 months maternity. It might actually make sense then.
theregister.com
Hot