Not really a rumor, there’s currently 114 lawsuits against OpenAI filed
1 Like
ChatGPT and friends having to be turned off indefinitely will at least lead to job reports that look amazing (because suddenly you will have mass-scale rehiring as the suits move at a glacial pace through the courts). In a couple of cases, companies have already placed humans back into the jobs they thought they could hand over to AI.
Putting aside being sued…
“They” are working at training A.I to think like humans do. Which is a big task but they are working on building general intelligence’s that have a lot of the cognitive architecture of our brain. Which at the moment means piecing together computer science and math algorithms in a loose replication of the architecture. But even just pieced together it means it can think and act better and quicker than a human.
Take that Netflix documentary. They put one of the best F16 pilots against an A.I pilot in a dog fight. The human pilot lost every time.
Think about how much faster computers are at something like searching for information. GPT systems uses all the information on the internet to train itself.
There is an A.I arms race. It’s not going to stop, it can’t. Again, for example, the above Netflix documentary shows this from a military prospective.
The question is, who will own the advanced A.I? If you want a government to own it I understand why, but I like Ben Goertzel’s decentralised thinking. An advanced machine owned by us all for the good of us all.
F-16 pilots lost, because a human brain’s main feature is not fast calculation. Humankind produce computer, because we wants this devices make fast calculations. It is normal, and goal is it too.
In the future, aircraft pilots will not fights against aircrafts, they will command unmanned vehicles, this devices will fight.
No. He lost because he didn’t want to have head on combat. The A.I didn’t care, it just worked out the best way to defeat the other pilot. The other pilot didn’t want too take the risk, the A.I did.
Yes. A.I fighting A.I seems like that’s the way it’s going to go.
Also Japan pilots didn’t care on the WWII. 
This varies from pilot to pilot.
Sadly I can say, today’s urban legend is Artificial Intelligence. Humans don’t know what is this and humans scare to this.
Until humankind invent what is consciousness and giving meaning ability (of course if it is possible) A.I. never can replace to humankind.
Aircraft powered by AI also enjoy the advantage of not needing room for life support or even room for a cockpit. In addition, they can perform extremely intense maneuvers that would kill a human. It is not just a matter of pilots being outsmarted.
2 Likes
A democratic government is the closest thing to “owned by all”. A decentralized marketplace doesn’t let everyone own an equal share of the AI. You pay to use AI, just like any other marketplace. I fail to see anything remarkable about SIngularityNET. If you have a lot of money you can pay to use more AI than people with less money. If you are homeless you don’t benefit from AI at all.
Not sure why but I remembered good old ED 209:
What your TV will look like in the future if legal issues regarding AI are not solved soon.
Writers are on strike, now the actors are going on strike, all that is left to cripple Hollywood indefinitely and even destroy it is the artists and broadcasters going on strike.
broadcasters won’t go on strike … just air reruns. still. 
1 Like
I hope they do- the more strikes, the better things get for everyone. Now that politics are predominantly a wealth game, unions are the only major change effector we have left in this country
Slightly more on topic: part of the reason SAG-AFTRA is striking is the studios’ frankly horrifying proposal of scanning actors and using their likeness for free in perpetuity. (It’s very real, and easy to verify.) We should all be watching this scenario closely- it’s the first major labor vs AI moment
3 Likes
aye, this is certainly a prime example of a just strike. this silliness needs to be nipped in the bud now. while i have no issue using new virtual actors, leave existing people out of this mess unless you will fairly recompense them, which i’m not even sure is possible. this really is, imo, no different than any other form of identity theft.
2 Likes
Can you give an example? I like to test LLMs.
Of course consciousness can’t be invented. A person may believe they have consciousness but it can’t be proven they do. If A.G.I walks, talks and acts like they have consciousness, they tell you they have it, who is to say they don’t?
Your points are valid but in this case it wasn’t about being outsmarted. The A.I played chicken and the human pilot lost. The A.I was “happy” to take the very high risk of crashing head on into the other F16.
A.I attaches no value to its own survival, it’s only about achieving its goal. That’s hard to beat.
Can it tell what is what about a thing first time see?
No.
Only something conscious thing sense about it and it can give meaning to it. But an A.I. only can say “this is red, oval, etc. etc”.
I’m just wondering if that result will be better, or worse, than Sucker Punch. Sounds like a dead heat, at the moment.
As much as I like the consciousness debate, this thread is not the place. Please let’s end it here.
Singularity uses a lot of open source code. It’s using tokens to incentivise people to code for the advancement of A.I. This will help people in poor countries make money.
As for the argument for decentralisation. Ben Goertzel makes some good points.
I’ll try, from memory, to put a few as best I can with some of my own thrown in, like….
——
A way to make the advancement of A.I something for everyone to be part of is messy, and hard to put together, but how the advancement of A.I is actually advancing, is itself, at the moment, messy and could get a whole lot worse, how do you make it less messy, because the technology is advancing quicker than those managing its role out can control. Which does lead to another question, who is managing its role out? I dunno.
Who should?
Would you want a country like China to do so?
Who should regulate it? I don’t think it can be, anyhow governments aren’t very good at regulation with simple stuff, let alone A.I.
Should a person, company or country own it?
A.I is too beneficial for the worlds population for one entity to own it. And of course that entity would ultimately want it for money, power and domination.
——
And they are just some of the reasons while I’d like to see decentralisation. Last two points…
Decentralisation is like open source and could create smarter A.I than any one company or country could, because no matter how smart one entity makes A.I it can always be improved upon and will happen much quicker. This will also make A.I cheaper.
Main point….
If something is decentralised no one government can own it, control it or shut it down. It would be like trying to control, own or shut down the internet.
1 Like
Thank you for the reply, I think I understand where you’re coming from.
1 Like