One solution is not to advance anything of course. I'm not even joking, is there going to be a successor to React? I suspect not, with the vast amount of training data for React now, it's going to look silly to move to something else with less support. What is the last new popular programming language, rust? Will there be another one? I suspect not. Same reasoning. The irony of all this AI acceleration talk is it'll work best if we don't accelerate the underlying tech at all.
Yes. I am seeing a big push to use vanilla js for single file html apps that are easy to build, deploy and distribute because they have no build step. I could see component libraries emerging that make it easier build from chat interfaces with less ceremony
The Stasi had one informant per 6.5 people. We're moving to a world in which everyone can have their own personal informant. I really don't think I am being hyperbolic here.
One question I am genuinely wondering about is whether a self-driving car _is_ cheaper than a human driver, once all of the externalities are priced in. In SF right now a Waymo is typically priced a little under an Uber (actually quite a bit under if you count that no one has got around to asking for tips for AIs yet). I am sure the running costs of each Waymo vastly exceed the costs of a human driver to Uber...
Good question. We know that Waymo has about one remote operator/customer service rep per 40 vehicles. Waymo also operates vehicle garages for charging, cleaning, and maintenance. Those probably all add up to roughly what it costs a rental car company to operate a car. Maybe more, because there's more complex maintenance, maybe less, because they park themselves.
There's also a huge sunk R&D cost and an ongoing R&D cost that probably dwarfs operating costs. But the per-car cost drops as more cars are deployed.
On the other hand, robot vehicles can have higher utilization than single-owner vehicles. They can be on the road as long as there are customers. Observation of their parking lots indicates most of the cars are out on the road about 12 hours a day.
Here’s the other thing: taxi/rideshare driving can essentially function as a jobs program. It’s a basic job anyone can do without significant training. From a government planning perspective, you can’t just assume that all your displaced labor force can skill up.
What I noticed about China is that they employ a lot of people to stand around in nice looking government (non-police) uniforms and do various menial work or not much at all.
The US does this to a perhaps a lesser extent with jobs like TSA agents.
Sure, I guess you can do UBI, but what if that’s less efficient overall?
Example given with made up numbers:
Status quo, an Uber driver makes $20/hour out of a revenue of $50/hour total covering vehicle operating costs and platform fees.
Self-driving cars: self-driving cars cost $40/hour to operate, UBI pays someone a wage of $20/hour since there’s no job available. This basically means that rideshares now cost $10/hour more to operate than before.
Or, maybe that person on UBI makes $10/hour instead of $20/hour and gets a worse job to cover the difference.
Obviously there are many flaws and assumptions with the way I present this scenario but it’s a really good question to bring up whether putting everyone out of work is actually going to be a net positive.
Regarding what you said about driver hours, it’s not unheard of to run multiple drivers on multiple shifts with the same vehicle. Not all rideshare drivers own the vehicle nor use it as a personal vehicle. But the other factor is that the drivers who do use personal vehicles effectively subsidize the fact that they can only drive it for a human-length shift. Waymo has to buy every car (more expensive than a normal car) and use it only for business purposes while an uber driver can just use the same used Toyota Prius they use to take their kids to soccer practice.
The reason that math works out just fine is because the self driving company makes revenue of $50, pockets $10, its the government that's going to have to figure out how to find $20 to pay UBI. IN other words its not their problem, the math works out just fine for them.
Taxis would be a terrible jobs program because cars are the worst possible means of transportation for everyone except the person in the car.
Run a jobs program building public transit instead. We built an entire nation on unskilled workers laying rail, we can do it again and it will benefit everyone, not just car manufacturers.
I work in self driving and strongly agree with this. I may have had some of the coolaid, but I genuinely believe that self driving cars are the only thing that can pry Americans from their cars. Once ownership falls, people will stop voting against better options.
Many people actually like driving their cars. Who are you to decide they shouldn’t be allowed to do this? Cars are more than just ‘get me from point A to B’.
I have no problem with people driving cars. I just don't want to subsidize them. Get rid of street parking, add congestion pricing. Set road taxes such that they actually cover the costs of the roads.
The reason it would be unreasonable in America today is because there is no alternative, and people are expected to be able to commute long distances. Bring in alternatives and it becomes logical.
Look at the cities in Japan, most people live within a 15 minute walk of a subway station, but people still drive.
Current LLMs prove that the Turing Test was insufficient all along. But they also prove that intelligence != consciousness. One can, after all, be conscious without a thought in one's head. We certainly have ongoing work in identifying the neural correlates of consciousness in animals, none of which is going to be remotely applicable to machines. We're genuinely blind to the question of whether a sufficiently large neural net can exhibit flashes of subjective experience.
The most convincing argument is that if other humans were not experiencing consciousness then they probably wouldn't waste large parts of their lives arguing about it.
On that regard, arguing with thermometer is not a thing generally, but people arguing with LLMs is certainly common enough now to not be considered a completely marginal case. Given some people fall in love or move to suicide after interacting with these models, they are certainly different from even the most beloved dialectical rubber duck.
That was one of my thoughts years ago after playing with early ChatGPT and local llama1: this proves that intelligence and consciousness do not necessitate one another and may not even be directly related.
I’ve kind of thought this for many years though. A bacterium and a tree are probably conscious. I think it’s a property of life rather than brains. Our brains are conscious because they are alive. They are also intelligent.
The consciousness of a bacterium or a tree might be radically unlike ours. It might not have a sense of self in the same way we do, or experience time the same way, but it probably has some form of experience of existing.
But why? A roomba has senses, and can access them when it has power and respond to stimulation. When it runs out of power it no longer experiences this sensation and no longer responds to stimulus.
I think this gets to the conflation we naturally have with consciousness and a sense of self. Does a tree have a sense of self? I imagine probably not, a tree acts more like a clonal colony than a single organism.
It may be helpful here to think about, at what point does a sense of self, of varying degrees, become evolutionarily advantageous?
An animal that doesn't have some kind of pair bond or social arrangement, and doesn't raise its young, has a lot less need for some of this emotional hardware than we do.
Whereas K-selected species that raise their kids have broadly the same need for it as humans.
That doesn't categorically mean it evolved with the first pair-bonding K-reproducer, or that birds have parallel-evolved emotional hardware like ours, but there's plenty of behavioural evidence there - the last common ancestor of birds and humans was small-brained and primitive, but investing in individual children probably evolved around the time of amniote eggs, just because they were so much more biologically expensive to produce than amphibian or fish eggs.
Is someone tripped out on mushrooms experience ego death and total disruption of sense of self still conscious? They may even contend they are more conscious than normal life, what with all the communing with the universe and whatnot.
Trees react to the world around them in many ways.
May be they appear intelligent to us because we are primitive and new to such an entity. Imagine some laymen from like a thousand years back could experience Google and Stack overflow. Having no idea of the internet or computers, wouldn't they consider it to be intelligent to some extent?
And just like those ancient people had not have an understanding of the concept of an internet and massive capacity to store and retrive data, we does not have a widespread understanding of how LLMs map concepts in a way that can do fuzzy searches. Once we understand it, may be they will look like a regular search...
The turing test is alive and well. All it takes to "win" is to just sit there. Ask for a Nazi joke, ask for a longer explanation etc. It's incredibly easy, in a Turing test scenario to sort out who is human and who is LLM.
Except that I have never interacted with an LLM and been struck by uncertainty whether I am communicating with a human. It’s still lamentably trivial to tell whether it’s a chat bot or a real person on the other end. Nothing has passed the Turing test in my book.
Hobble implies worse, I’m not talking about better or worse, I’m talking about different. Uncanny valley, inhuman alien. It does not feel the same as interacting with a living emotional human being.
I read it once, was immensely impressed, can't bear to read it again. In fact I find most of what I have read from Peter Watts to be brilliant but disconcerting and uncomfortable.
Wrong based on what criteria? Or are we just moving the goal post because we are uncomfortable with the idea that neural networks might be conscious?
If a single cell organism moves towards light and away from a rock, we say it’s aware. When a roomba vacuum does the same we try to create alternate explanations. Why? Based on the criteria applied to one it’s aware. If there is some other criteria, say we find out the roomba doesn’t sense the wall but has a map of the room and is using GPS and a programmed route, then the criteria of “no fixed programs that relate to data outside of the system, would justify saying the roomba isn’t “aware”.
I'm mainly saying it's impossible to know, at least without a theory of consciousness that doesn't exist. Do we consider bacteria to be conscious though, is there something like to be a single cell? I can easily believe there is something like to be an insect.
I’d argue it’s a spectrum with awareness being simple response to stimuli at one and self awareness of and reflection on a subjective experience across time on the other.
There's a story to tell in that:
1) Google has a transformer-based AI that hallucinates too much to release
2) OpenAI replicates the tech then YOLOs it
3) Everyone says: look how Google is getting left behind! Google thinks: the second mouse gets the cheese.
4) Google gets the cheese, OpenAI is absorbed by Microsoft or just disappears (or both).
TPUs were their real moat. All that capacity used throughout their suite of products on non-chatbot features, ready to rip for consumers once soon as somebody else opened the floodgates to the public.
Now all their competitors lose money on every token paying their cloud providers (of course it's funny money, maybe they're just giving the cloud providers equity) while Google is sitting calmly over there, actually owning everything they need for any eventuality, and beholden to nobody.
> Going back to the analogies: This is like copying answers through university and then showing up to a job that requires independent thought.
That's exactly what is happening now. I wouldn't even call it an analogy, I'd call it an example of where AI is already having a baleful effect. FWIW I don't disagree with the article's thesis or the examples: yes, absolutely, if used well AI can elevate engineers in exactly this way and it behooves us engineers to use it in that way. We can also say that the deliberate design of the AI systems we are constantly being exhorted to use inclines them towards work-slop and abdicated thinking.
AI could be a huge net benefit, and justify large layoffs.
AI could be a huge short-term benefit, justify layoffs now, so long as you (the exec doing the laying off) don't have to worry about the long term
AI could have middling net benefit, but be a great excuse to justify layoffs now. In this scenario, the people laid off and those that remain bear the cost (one, losing their jobs; those that remain, burning out with the extra workload)
etc etc, many scenarios to consider...
Same! Every so often I remember that I can juggle, and spend a minute or two juggling, and feel better for it. And then I forget for weeks or months.
(I taught myself while procrastinating from exam revision, many years ago. I started with a large bag of oranges. Just enough of an incentive not to drop them, no real harm when they did hit the floor.)
I do find it hilarious that after all the machine learning optimizations done on people's feeds over the years, all the promos got for a 1% improvement on this metric, every E7 and E8 who can claim x% of this or that, after all of that work, we might genuinely, and not even as a joke, be in the situation of needing to throw _other_ AI agents at this selfsame feed in order to extract any real value from it. What a world we've built.
