oinfoalgo

10 years is Hassabis current AGI projection.

I think this is the gambit that we have already committed to.

Taking TRT or not is a personal choice.

TRT is longevity to me. Feeling younger for as long as possible.

An "alarming study". You just have a puritanical mindset and can't stand someone else doesn't share your shitty sex life.

I don't think it is that surprising.

It will become harder and harder for the average person to gain from newer models.

My 75 year old father loves using Sonnet. He is not asking anything though that he would be able to tell Opus is "better". The answers he gets from the current model are good enough. He is not exactly using it to probe the depths of statistical mechanics.

My father is never going to vibe code anything no matter how good the models get.

I don't think AGI would even give much different answers to what he asks.

You have to ask the model something that allows the latest model to display its improvements. I think we can see, that is just not something on the mind of the average user.

It doesn't solve the problem that people want what other people want.

In a "post scarcity" world we will figure out how to make certain things scarce and more desirable. Then people will start gaming the system to try to acquire the more expensive/scarce items. Some will even make it their life mission to acquire the intentionally scarce items/experiences.

Basically, the same situation we have now.

The bigger issue to me is that not all geography is anything close to equal.

I would much rather live on a beach front property than where I live right now. I don't because the cost trade off is too high.

To bring the real estate market into equilibrium with UBI you would have to turn rural Nebraska into a giant slab city like ghetto. Or every mid sized city would have a slab city ghetto an hour outside the city. It would be ultra cheap to live there but it would be a place everyone is trying to save up to move out of. It would create a completely new under class of people.

I use AI as a tool to make digital art but I don't make "AI Art".

Imperfection is not the problem with "AI Art". The problem is that it is really hard to not get the models to produce the same visual motifs and cliches. People can spot AI art so easy because of the motifs.

I think midjourney took this to another level with their human feedback. It became harder and harder to not produce the same visual motifs in the images to the point it is basically useless for me now.

I am a Bach fiend and the problem is BWV 1 to 1080.

Why would I listen to algorithmic Bach compositions when there are so many of Bach's own work I have never listened to?

Even if you did get bored of all JS music, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach has over 1000 works himself.

There are also many genius baroque music composers outside the Bach family.

This is true of any composer really. Any classical composer that the average person has heard of has an immense catalog of works compared to modern recording artists.

I would say I have probably not even listened to half the works of all my favorite composers because it is such a huge amount of music. There is no need for some kind of classical music style LORA.

This is a huge problem IMO.

You have to assume the CIA are the absolute masters of layered deception.

I just listened to Anna Paulina Luna on Joe Rogan drone on about the CIA and remote viewing. I just assume that is all some kind of booby trap nonsense to fall into. I actually think the whole interview was Anna telling the bullshit the CIA showed her to keep her from finding anything that matters.

Same way with classifying the JFK assassination docs for decades even though there is absolute nothing in them.

It is brilliant. Something far beyond gas lighting.

Objectively, I have no idea what to believe with the CIA and that obviously is the strategy.

Deep Dream was 2016.

The problem with 2025 is I have seen thousands of better examples than that landscape. The reflections in the lake are complete trash.

Then I think of Veo 3 that is just incredible. So no, it is not impressive if a still from the video model is vastly better than the static image generator from the same company.

I find it especially annoying because I can't think of another company this would happen at. It is just so Google.

If we had firms spending billions of dollars to pass the Turing test, it seems absurd to me to believe the current crop of models could not pass the test.

Luckily, it is obvious that spending huge amounts of money to train models on how to best deceive humans with language is a terrible idea.

That is also gaming the test and not in the spirit of generality that the test was trying to test for.

Even playing Tic-tac-toe against GPT5 is a joke. The model knows enough of how the game works to let you play in text but doesn't even know when you won the game.

The interesting part is that the model can even tell you why it sucks at tic-tac-toe

"Because I’m not really thinking about the game like a human — I’m generating moves based on text patterns, not visualizing the board in the same intuitive way you do."

10 years ago it would not be conceivable we could have models that pass the Turing test but be hopeless at Tic-tac-toe and be able to tell you why they are not good at Tic-tac-toe.

That right there is a total invalidation of the Turing test IMO.

They also are one of the most overvalued companies of all time right now.

The business model was completely stagnating before LLMs.

They are cashing in on the rush for large firms to wrangle data for LLMs but the entire concept of large firms and FDE has obvious scaling issues.

People don't talk about their losing art trades or the art they over paid for and are trying to sell in a completely illiquid market.

We were in a huge fine art bubble up to covid. This decade has been a much different story. It is a boring news story though compared to a Ken Griffin balling out last decade buying his favorite paintings for incredible sums of money.

In cybernetics, this label has existed for a long time.

Unfortunately, discourse has followed an epistemic trajectory influenced by Hollywood and science fiction, making clear communication on the subject nearly impossible without substantial misunderstanding.

I actually don't know if you are referring to anti-LLM/"ai slop" software engineers or irrationally bullish LLM "the singularity is near" enthusiast.

Religious fervor in one's own opinion on the state of the world seems to be the zeitgeist.