deleted by creator
I don’t know, how is this any different than saying Wikipedia knows more than any human on earth? Ok, so you’re computer program has a bunch of information, who cares?
I believe AI is smarter than Sam Altman.
Sam Altman believes he is smarter than scientists.
The more pants-on-head crazy the claims are, the more desperate they are.
Now we flipped the house and senate, I hope we get some common sense guard rails for AI.
I belive it as soon as they replace Scam Altman with AI as CEO and report postive growth and income for at last the next 10 Years.
But CEO’s are much more smarterer than scientists!
If scientists are so smart, why don’t they have any money?
Don’t tell me they value something other than “number go up” because I won’t understand you.
AI spits out whatever it finds on the internet. I guess you could say that’s smart if you’re being obtuse about it…
Yet I can ask it to do work that only a moderately smart human can do, like read, and it fucks that up so hard.
Is this how we find out Sam Altman is actually an illiterate dipshit?
If AI is so smart how come it can’t figure out how to run without a shit tonne of water and generating all that noise?
yo Sam…give one single example where any scientist can solve anything without new data generated by experimentation done in a lab by people.
The idea that a “super intelligence” will cure diseases is a an ignorant view of drug discovery. AI is being trained on mostly experimental failures and mostly poor experimental design in poor model systems for human disease. You can only polish a turd so hard.
They legitimately, genuinely, 100% believe the AI can simulate everything and will use the to intelligently iterate solutions. There is zero reasoning with these lunatics
Sure, AI can solve any problem except how to make money from AI.
AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It’s just smarter than Sam Altman. But that’s partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
They are, but at the same time they are not at all
Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
If he really believed what he said, he would. But he knows he’s just talking shit
It’s the best monkey at the typewriter.
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn’t think. It has no awareness or understanding. It’s not intelligent. It certainly can’t come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
it mostly generates bullshit that will waste time and money.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx
And when we do create artificial intelligence capable of wants, needs, personal expression, individuality, and emotional depth, using them as robots means we’ve created our own mechanical race of slaves.
Measure of a Man.
Anyway, I don’t understand why you’re getting down voted.
