Over 1/3 of the world's population, really? Although, think of how much money OpenAI will have lost by then.
My first thought as well, though I was looking at it from the perspective of, "The entire US population is only 341 million!!!". 1/3rd of the global population is far fetched as fuck.
It it suggested that dark matter rarely interacts with normal matter but when two dark matter particles smash together they can generate gamma rays.
The movie analogy is old and outdated.
I'd compare it to a computer game. In any open world game, it seems that there are people living a life - going to work, doing chores, going home, etc. - but it's a carefully crafted illusion. "Carefully crafted" in so far as the developers having put exactly that into the game that is needed to suspend your disbelief and let you think, at least while playing, that there are real people. But behind the facade, they are not. They just disappear when entering their homes, they have no actual desires just a few numbers and conditional statements to switch between different pre-programmed behaviour patterns.
If done well, it can be a very, very convincing illusion. I'm sure that someone who hasn't seen a computer game before might think that they are actual people, but anyone with a bit of background knowledge knows they are not.
For AI, most of the people simply don't (yet?) have that bit of background knowledge.
And yet, when asked if the world is flat, they correctly say that it's not.
Despite hundreds of flat-earthers who are quite active online.
And it doesn't even budge on the point if you argue with it. So for whatever it's worth, it has learned more from scraping the Internet than at least some humans.
It's almost as if we shouldn't have included "intelligence" in the actual fucking name.
We didn't. The media and the PR departments did. In the tech and academia worlds that seriously work with it, the terms are LLMs, machine learning, etc. - the actual terms describing what the thing does. "AI" is the marketing term used by marketing people. You know, the people who professionally lie about everything in order to sell things.
professions that most certainly require a lot of critical thinking. While I would say that that is ludicrous
It is not just ludicrous, it is irrationally dangerous.
For any (current) LLM, whenever you interact with them you need to remember one rule-of-thumb (not my invention, read it somewhere and agree): The LLM was trained to generate "expected output". So always think that implicitly your prompt starts with "give me the answer you think I want to read on the following question".
Giving an EXPECTED answer instead of the most likely to be true answer is literally life-threatening in a medical context.
But "95% of international traffic" is not the same as "95% of traffic". You are slicing the wrong pie, Happy Thanksgiving!
That's the problem: they are not a web. The original idea of the internet was to have a web of connections so that a few cables or nodes going bad wouldn't stop data movement, it would route around the bad spots via going through adjacent parts of the web. Seems we have to return to the original vision.
Technically they usually route around damaged sea cables via a larger scale redundancy, such as through another continent, but the webbiness needs to be per sea based on the rate of damage so far.
"Epstein diddit"
Are you saying it's comparable to Kodak sitting on their digital camera patents from the 70's to avoid knocking film profits even if other camera firms are dabbling in digital?
Half of the human population doesn't think either, they just echo their favorite chamber.
Or actually invite reporters to secret chats.
Why doesn't Nvidia make more specific chips to compete with Google on such server farms? They have the cash.
They are sometimes wrong, conspiracy nuts are usually wrong.
Why is the word "all" there? If "both" is already in the sentence, it's superfluous.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (6) Them bats is smart; they use radar.
