You mean in a positive or negative way? Harmful? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615097/ , and/or useless? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447210/
Glad to hear you are doing better!
Ok, that is an interesting route to go. Let "us" know how it goes if you feel for sharing your journey
Hey Sable, I am sorry about your situation. Perhaps I am pointing out the obvious, but you just achieved something. You wrote a post and people are reading it. Keep 'em coming!
Good that you mention it and did NOT get down voted. Yet. I have noticed that we are in the midst of an "AI-washing" attack which is also going on here on lesswrong too. But its like asking a star NFL quarterback if he thinks they should ban football because the risk of serious brain injuries, of course he will answer no. The big tech companies pours trillions of dollars into AI so of course they make sure that everyone is "aligned" to their vision and that they will try to remove any and all obstacles when it comes to public opinion. Repeat after me:
"AI will not make humans redundant."
"AI is not an existential risk."
...
I am not so sure that Xi would like to get to AGI any time soon. At least not something that could be used outside of a top secret military research facility. Sudden disruptions in the labor market in China could quickly spell the end of his rule. Xi's rule is based on the promise of stability and increased prosperity so I think that the export ban of advanced GPU's is a boon to him at time being.
Imagine having a context window that fits something like PubMed or even The Pile (but that's a bit into the future...), what would you be able to find in there that no one could see using traditional literature review methods? I guess that today a company like Google could scale up this tech and build a special purpose supercomputer that could handle a 100-1000 millions token context window if they wanted, or perhaps they already have one for internal research? its "just" 10x+ of what they said they have experimented with, with no mentions of any special purpose built tech.
Dagon thank you for follow up on my comment,
yes, they are in some ways oranges and apples but both of them put a limit on your possibility to create things. One can argue that immaterial rights have been beneficial for humanity as a whole, but it is at the same time criminalizing one of our most natural instincts which is to mimic and copy what other humans do to increase our chance of survival. Which lead to the next question, would people stop innovate and create if they could not protect it?
Without resorting to exotic conspiracy theories, is it that unlikely to assume that Altman et al. are under tremendous pressure from the military and intelligence agencies to produce results to not let China or anyone else win the race for AGI? I do not for a second believe that Altman et al. are reckless idiots that do not understand what kind of fire they might be playing with, that they would risk wiping out humanity just to beat Google on search. There must be bigger forces at play here, because that is the only thing that makes sense when reading Leike's comment and observing Open AI's behavior.