It seems one could convince this hypothetical emperor to invest into industrialization of technology by offering to build things other than a steam engine, or outlining how a steam engine leads to them -- telegraph, or semaphore towers to send news of invasions or changes in distant towns or provinces, better manufacturing capability for tools and weapons, food storage and transport mechanisms, etc.
I looked over a bit of David's public facing work, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7hJggz41oU
I think there is a fundamental difference between robust, security minded alignment and tweaking smaller language models to produce output that "looks" correct. It seems David is very optimistic about how easy these problems are to solve.
I tracked down the exact quote where Prof Marcus was talking about timelines with regards to jobs. He mentioned 20-100 years (right before the timestamp) and then went on to say: https://youtu.be/TO0J2Yw7usM?t=2438
"In the long run, so called AGI really will replace a large fraction of human jobs. We're not that close to AGI, despite all the media hype and so forth ... in 20 years people will laugh at this ... but when we get to AGI, let's say it is 50 years that is really going to have profound effects on labor..."
Christina Montgomery is explicitly asked "Should we have one" [referring to a new agency] by Senator Lindsey Graham and says "I don't think so" at https://youtu.be/TO0J2Yw7usM?t=4920
I was somewhat disturbed by the enthusiastic audience applause to dire serious warnings. What are techniques or ways to anchor conversations like this to keep them more serious?
As a new user -- is it ok and acceptable to create a new post? I have read the discussions in this community in logged-out-mode for quite some time, but never contributed.
I wanted to make a post titled "10 Questions and Prompts that only an AGI or ASI could answer"
The current link to the podcast is available here: https://munkdebates.com/podcast/the-rise-of-thinking-machines