xvector

Interesting, the current gen of models feels quite close to AGI to me. If you showed it to me 5 years ago and told me nothing about how it works, I'd probably have called it AGI.

Total power over others. If they want to maintain it, they can just make it so and nobody can stop them.

This is really fascinating, I'm thinking of putting a significant chunk of my net worth into the four AI labs (maybe 40/30/20/10% across Anthropic/OpenAI/Google/Meta, alongside another large investment across the chip supply chain).

It seems obvious to me that we will get superintelligence in the next 5 years, and that is a winner take all race. Who knows to whatever extent money will matter after this.

It's so interesting seeing all of these breaches and then going back to the old threads on Mythos and seeing the widespread skepticism and denial on HN.

I wish I was schizophrenic enough to come up with conspiracies this interesting.

What if they build superintelligence?

Lemonade isn't intelligence. Having 4000 liters of lemonade doesn't give you a competitive leg up over a lemonade stand with 2000 liters.

People can be as anti-AI as they want, they'll still be totally dependent on it. It's not like anyone is pro-Meta, but billions are addicted to IG.

Where do you think almost all of that $67B is going, if not to their infrastructure and inference costs?

If your hyper growth startup does not have more liabilities than assets, it has fucked up.

One day the automated decisionmaking systems will be far better at making decisions than us. That day is not far off. At some point, we will turn to these systems for our most important life-and-death decisions. I don't think that's irrational.

In this era, intending to corrupt the automated decisionmaking systems we rely on, will certainly be sabotage (if done with that intent, as is the case with OP). However, I don't think any sabotage would actually work well in the era of superintelligence, so perhaps the point is moot.

I love how everyone from every political background thinks big tech has it out for them specifically. No, it couldn't be that algorithms are stochastic and random and sometimes ban random people. The tech companies are trying to manipulate everyone, every single side, into some goal only they understand.

Somehow none of the hundreds of thousands of software engineers that have worked there have managed to uncover exactly what this purpose is despite having access to the monorepos and visibility into the recommendation engine pipelines.

On the modern internet, people confuse conspiratorial thinking for well-reasoned thinking. But an idea is not correct just because it is interesting or exciting.

You phrase this as a "gotcha" but I don't think you understand that NGOs and nonprofits are the exact kind of entity that would naturally be involved here.

Algorithmic transparency is a deeply unprofitable and difficult task, with people from all sides screeching at you thinking you're biased against them. Governments obviously shouldn't be involved (unless you're a fan of state-controlled media), and so the only people that will take this on are people that care enough about the impact of social media on society to give up careers in the private sector.

If you care so much, you can always join one of these NGOs! You won't. I guarantee you they are not as biased as you think they are, and they certainly don't hold a "shadow ban this guy" hammer.

Shadowbans have a high base rate. You notice when it happens to your side and take it as a sign of bias. You don't notice when it happens to the other side, because that is not your circle and you don't track them as closely.

I guarantee your political opponents also think Meta is trying to shadow ban then.

Or the public could grow up, learn that algorithms are stochastic, and not let their vote be influenced by the number that pops up when they type in "vote" in the search bar.

If this is influencing your votes your democracy is already lost.