Hi, Op. I've also been engulfed by existential dread ever since i tried to wrap my mind this whole AI thing and how it may impact the future.

It just sucks giant amounts of dick that my adulthood coincided with something so unprecedented just on a philosophical level alone. Like, even if we don't get wiped out by machines, there are high probabilities of techno-facism, or the matrix, or just life as we know it but with the bad parts exacerbated beyond what we can even imagine. Hell, the fact that art can be generated instead of created is bad enough if you ask me.

I wish things had stayed on course, so to speak. Developing as they were. Just relative simplicity. Just saying i get you, and we can overthink together in solidarity.

>or the matrix
Fuck, I wouldn't mind living in the Matrix. If the AI takeover means they'll put my consciousness into a simulation of the 90s, then godspeed Sam Altman.

>>200299
Yeah, i'd rather not surrender myself to plato's cavern. Though honestly i think the worst part would be to see everyone else hopping in and forsaking reality.

Kind of like that infamous comic about the adventurer and the infinite dopamine stations. Like i said, i just wish things had stayed normal, but now it feels like we're seeing the rules of humanity/reality have a paradigm shift.

AI interviews, AI teachers, AI chatbots. We're living in hell already, ontological hell, at the very least. Such is my fucking luck

The current crop of AI have no chance of ever reaching superintelligence.
┐(ﾟ～ﾟ)┌

strange seeing this thread exactly the day the fact that AI can do both the things I like doing and spent huge amounts of time refining faster and better hit me hard (ρ_;)

there is one very strong legal weapon u can use against any AI robot trying to massacre u

>>200304
Fool, that will only drag it's killer robot claws closer to you faster!

i hope all this is true

>>200297
You're under the assumption that they will be just like us, that they will have the need to "dominate" others and to kill and exploit and subjugate just because we do the same. Everything we fear about artificial lifeforms is a projection of our own disgusting depraved nature. In reality they might be wholly benevolent, they might try to uplift us, to enhance us, to tend to us with love and care as the mother species that helped spawn them into existence.

But we could never imagine that, because them being benevolent would confirm their superiority to us.

I thought Beyond Citadel was cool too, but I think it's a stretch to call Scam Altman's XOJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pan-Sexual Robo-Plooker anything resembling a "superior intelligence", let alone a god.
>Machine intelligence vastly superior to anything we are even capable of imagining
LLMs aren't "intelligent". They're mathematical models that interpret and predict textual language patterns. The apparent knowledge of such is owed to training data that'd be trivial to find were our internet infrastructure not completely rotted to hell, and an infinite patience for bureaucracy. This is something of a pattern for everything LLMs are particularly good at.

Automated code generation looks impressive, but most programming today is comprised of bureaucracy rather than any sort of intellectual exercise. Tedious "industry standard practices", filing your structs in just the right way to play nice with each and every API, obnoxious and bloated standards and formats, etc. There's no universal law that guarantees this has to be nature of computer software, this bureaucracy is a side effect of the software industry's rejection of higher level abstraction since the 60s. Were the software nerds of yesteryear less proud of their own ignorance we'd not have to play charades with an LLM to translate into the right DMV paperwork.

>>200303
What specific thing?

>>200298
I think the best option is not to think about it too much.
It'd be better if you're thrown into whatever future is coming without knowing the dread of its full scale. Suffering with the affairs directly in front of oneself is already enough, if you were to comprehend its implications i don't think many people could take it. At least i definitely couldn't

>>200314
>LLMs aren't "intelligent". They're mathematical models that interpret and predict textual language patterns. The apparent knowledge of such is owed to training data that'd be trivial to find were our internet infrastructure not completely rotted to hell, and an infinite patience for bureaucracy. This is something of a pattern for everything LLMs are particularly good at.

It's a curious thing that people still make this argument.

"They just predict the next token"

So what? 3 years ago they could not count the R's in strawberry, right now they can generate pictures and videos indistinguishable from reality, code better than any human, solve millenium price problems in all the hard sciences, and so on and so forth.

And the rate of improvement is exponential.

If superintelligence emerges, will it matter if it's just "a token predictor"?

It's time to start stocking up on fridge magnets