haxiomic
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
2,025
Submissions
358
Member since
Mar 5
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 month ago
Linking to work, where ownership and attribution is clear and the owner has the ability to commercialise is a very different thing to “laundering” content through the model, quoting the midjourney developers here
> "We just need to launder it through a fine-tuned codex." [0]
[0] https://cybernews.com/news/midjourney-ai-images-art-lawsuit-...
Comment · 1 month ago
> playing around with user data like that would destroy their business.
Their entire business is based on stealing data. They can make a calculation that the cost stealing data is less than the cost of the positive publicity they can shape for solving Millennium NS
Comment · 2 months ago
Exactly this, so often the content is wrong or simply misunderstood and the AI sycophancy is trusted over devs who do know their craft
Comment · 2 months ago
A single gene is all that’s needed for human transmission, but multiple genes is not a major step up. This is exactly what I’d expect the most dangerous viruses to be, small gain of function tweaks to existing dangerous viruses, of which there are many to pick from
Comment · 2 months ago
There’s YouTubers who do this
[0]. I’d argue estimate the risks of a synthetically induced pandemic of massive impact this century are very high
Comment · 4 months ago
> The internal memo from Meta’s Reality Labs notes that the current situation in the U.S was good timing for the feature’s release.
> “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” says the document.
https://www.biometricupdate.com/202602/meta-plans-launch-of-...
Comment · 4 months ago
It’s important you read quotes from the internal memo to understand what kind of company Meta is
> The coalition letter comes after internal Meta planning documents suggested that the company wanted to launch the glasses during a “dynamic political environment” because civil society groups would be too busy to protest.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-75-organization...
Comment · 6 months ago
Though many would sacrifice an intelligent animals like a pig or dolphin and they’d do this optionally
Comment · 6 months ago
From the abstract
> General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at the Planck scale. This contention can be examined if a quantum computer is set to operate at a rate that exceeds the classical limit of one operation per Planck volume-time, or equivalently 2491 m−3 s−1. Here we quantify the relation between the logical qubit count and the extent to which classicality is challenged. We argue that 500 logical qubits are sufficient to reject theories confined to a laboratory. We account for the operational cost of computation and communication at all scales up to and including the observable universe, ultimately constrained by a 1600-logical-qubit computer. Remarkably, current plans for commercial quantum computers are projected to surpass this limit, thereby putting the quantum-gravity standoff to the test.
--
The notion that we're expected to be able to probe these limits within our lifetimes is very interesting and exciting
Comment · 7 months ago
This pattern continuing indefinitely without the need for analysis would be certainly nice but we do need to confront recent data. In the US, multiple metrics of quality-of-life peaked around 2015 and have declined since then, with some showing 11% decline while US total wealth has doubled! (with the majority of that decline pre-covid and pre-AI) [0][1][2].
What forces act on this trend? How can we make predictions? An interesting metric, which tracks the aggregate of many complex factors is the distribution of wealth, which could be seen as proxy for the distribution of power or agency of a person in their society. Median income as a fraction of total wealth decreased nearly 50% in real terms over this same period. [3]
Now inversely, during the period where life quality increased most the last century (1920 - 1980) inequality was _falling_.
How is super-human AI advanced through 2030, 2040, 2050 likely to affect things? Will it sharpen the inequality or relax it?
With AI the cost of raw resources to products goes down, but it's likely inequality increases. It's not obvious which force has a bigger impact on human quality of life as things shake out. However, I think the strongest argument – which also explains the steady improvements in QoL through previous changes you mentioned – has been to follow inequality, or median share of power in society.
- [0] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp
- [1] https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index
https://twitter.com/Haxiomic
To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour