To me, the idea of "fully human-level capable AI" is a double myth. It works, in so far as we do not try to ascribe concrete capabilities to the model. Anything human-level that can be parallelized is per definition super-human. That's why to me it's a myth in the first place. Additionally, human-level capabilities just make very little sense to me in a model. Is this a brain simulation, and does it feel boredom and long for human rights? Or is this "just" a very general problem solving tool, something akin to an actually accurate vision-language model? This is a categorical difference.
Accurate, general problem solving tools are far more likely and, in... (read more)
As a new user, it's hard to know where to start, and how to contribute to a community. being a Good Samaritan by nationality, I was reading through the guides and posts pertaining to the LessWrong community. One article that stood out to me is the "Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism" post. The rhetoric revolves around the fool, and where the fool goes, (intellectual) communities die. It resonated with me. I manage a community that's large on paper, but in practice often devoid of content that excites experts. Indeed, now devoid of the content that attracted (and was made by) the experts that grew the community in the first place, long before... (read 1679 more words →)
Quantity has a quality all of its own. I think you're absolutely correct, and you point out a good reason why self-moderation can be insufficient upon reaching this "critical mass". My benefit is that ours is not a forum-based platform but mostly chat, so it's much more likely for at least one moderator to see each message or at least the most obviously wrong ones. Would you say that, as the quantity increases, effective moderation becomes key?