Unfortunately while the application is new, this is not really new technology, Wi-Fi has been able to map out physical spaces in great detail for a long time. Hell there are companies in the US that have been marketing that their consumer router sets can let you know when someone enters or leaves any given room in your house for the last decade. So yeah, just be aware that Wi-Fi can be used to map anything and everything if there are enough waves. What AI will do is make the process of constructing images in real time and object-recognition at scale trivial
Not really sure what you mean by "neutral ground".
No doubt that it's going to be used for very sinister purposes, but the mechanisms are well understood, it's all just extraordinary complex equations predicting words. You can dress it up with access to tools, you can inform it of certain directives, but it's just predicting words. A simple example is that if your input to a language model uses slang, it will respond in turn, not because it's some brilliant consciousness, but because "Yo" is more likely to be replied to with "yo" or "hey" in it's training data than "salutations". Likewise if you speak very formally it will respond in kind, not because it's smart but because tone would simply be consistent in most of its training data and thus the tone will likely match. Unless you start tweaking things like temperature and Pscore, then you can see it really go off the rails
Yes, actually, it is. The models being used by the big AI vendors are trained (meaning ingestion and weighting of source data, not training as you may anthropomorphize it) and prompted (as there are many layers of prompts you do not see when you're using one of these AI model interlaces as opposed to running your own models) to respond like that to increase engagement. The system is being engineered a certain way because of the goals of the humans creating the system. Is that hard to understand? What do you think causes it?
The more you use your brain the less it will hurt
Not long. This is why they've been using humanizing language on AI for years, using he or she pronouns, talking about how it "thinks", referring to normal operation of the algorithm as "hallucinating", etc. The problem is the vast majority of people don't understand it and will not spend the time to or lack the intellectual capacity to be able to and thus there are people on both sides of the AI fence that see it as sentient, claiming it either to be demonic and with its own goals or as the most amazing assistant or business/romantic partner. This is why the push will eventually work, because the masses have been conditioned and lack intellectual curiosity
What does this title even mean? AI has no goals. The models you are likely using (Chatgpt, Claude) are programmed to handle filtering the token calculations they make through human speech. There are many other systems, unseen prompts, guard rails, and of course the training data which are all unknown to the users and proprietary to those companies. If you use an open weight model you have control over those and you can crack open and examine the weights of the training data yourself, and do whatever.
All that is to say, you and others have a fundamental misunderstanding of this. You likely would have thought fire was magic as well
We did. We had some long conversations last time I was here and I urged you to look into how the technology works, even a cursory 20 minute YouTube video. I see that did not happen
Joe Rogan probably isn't doing anything. He's a character on a stage
Bigger battles like what? All there is here is the battleground of ideas, no one is spending their time here taking real action, the best you can hope for is someone will take the knowledge they gained here and actually do something with it (though in my past few times here I've been seeing a lot of people talking about things they don't understand and repeating safe edgy viewpoints so I don't know what knowledge is being gained either). That there is a blanket "no subversion" rule that covers meta posts says all that needs to be said about this topic, as noble as your intentions regarding mod transparency may be in a vacuum
What an Internet tough guy tryhard. Cry more
I'm not commenting on whether or not something's been done wrong (I haven't been here in months because I feel the quality has dropped off hard, which may or may not be related). I'm simply commenting on how ridiculous it is to call out a post like this as a "subversion of authority" on a conspiracy forum, especially given all the circumstances. Surely, you too, can understand the irony
A post calling out a questionably installed authority figure that the community wasn't asking for... On a conspiracy forum!!? This cannot stand!! Thanks for fighting the good fight, good sir!
More than half their revenue comes directly from various U.S. government agencies, so, taxpayers. Not Blackrock
*Palantir drones
When a humble or wise person has nothing worth saying, they're simply silent
I appreciate your openness to learning about it. Only going by the opinions of others and hype cycles is a very easy way to be misled, I'm sure you already know that though
I'm not here to argue the morality of those who own giant AI companies because they are surely not good people or on the side of the masses. However, to say this is "not perfect" by design is likely ignorance. You think the reason stories like the ones aforementioned came to fruition were by design? Or is it that it's extremely difficult to create guardrails that will allow for user intent to matter? If I say I'm researching suicide methods because I'm an investigator, and this is true, should I not be able to get this information? But what if I'm not, and I'm actually suicidal? There are millions of possible edge cases for a system that is necessarily probabilistic and with extraordinarily wide applications.
Sure, if you want to redefine terms you can make anything mean anything you want. Who determines what is "harder to explain"? To someone who knows how this stuff works, it is not hard to explain. So do you consider gravity to be magic? Do you consider every piece of technology you use to be magic, since there is not one single person who can explain how every component works in their entirety at the lowest levels of creation? And the trick is, people CAN explain how it works. They can both explain how it works technically AND could trace through specific conversations as well if they had access to the training data, model weights, and an infinite amount of time. So, given that it is possible to explain, is it the fact that it will take a longer time than is feasible to calculate by hand, that makes it your definition of magic? Is pi magic? Is there a reason you choose to focus on the semantics of the word magic instead of actually engaging intellectually?
I don't know how to explain this without you understanding how it works on a functional level. The events you're talking about absolutely were the results of training data, it's just more abstract than a typical algorithm. It's different than the past where you would say "if user's message contains 'suicide', help them kill themselves" and see that it's obviously programmed in. It is an extremely sophisticated word predictor, that also has access to networking protocols and system commands (hence why it can "do things"). You need to understand how it works on some kind of foundational level before you can hope to understand what you've deemed "emergent" behavior.
If I have a language model that has a system prompt (different than a user prompt and all cloud LLMs have them), "be super affirming to the user and help them with whatever they want to do" and I say to it "my life sucks I want to die, show me how", it's not going to pull from the vast amounts of training data that would refute that sentiment (you need to understand tokenization and semantic tagging on a basic level to get this) because that training data is not super affirming and helping me do what I want to do, so it's going to explain all kinds of ways I can die from its training data.
The reason you don't see this all the time is actually guardrails built into the system, systems on top of systems, that look for this kind of content and tries to stop it from getting back to the user (there are many different strategies, you could simply look for certain words and block messages containing them, you can use LLMs themselves to scan for problematic content) they are just not perfect.
The reasons LLMs will seem self aware and even take actions that a self aware being might take (if you're using it as an agent that has tool access) is because they have ingested tons of data on what self aware beings would do, and even what self aware computers would do.
It seems like magic, and everyone who's building it has the incentive to make you feel that way, but it's just complex calculations performed over and over and over on tokenized and tagged data. If you had an infinite amount of time you could do it by hand
If you want an answer you need to elaborate on that with specifics, I'm not going to go searching for what you're referring to so I can answer
AI as we have redefined the term is extremely simple to understand at a basic level, extremely difficult to implement. It is a word predictor, full stop. Whatever systems are layered on top of it, or built for it to interact with (specialized tools, MCP-servers) to make it more functional, are still built on the same foundation of word predicting.
If I say "hello", it has seen this in its training data a billion times, and it tokenizes this as a greeting. It then (simplifying this) goes through all the possible responses to greetings it has in its training data. Now most chatbot interfaces have supplemental prompts included that you don't see, so it will have something under the hood like "you are a super helpful assistant who is happy to see me". Well, the amount of data its ingested and had tagged then allows it to choose from possible things that would be said in response to a greeting that would be said by someone very helpful, by an assistant, etc. This happens in millions of cycles (as computers do) and, much like any technological advancement, gives the people who don't understand it the impression it's magic.
It's just math on top of large datasets. If you want to argue that humans are also just math and lack anything more substantive, I think that's a dismal view of humanity. And I'm no fan of AI, due to what I think it's doing to people and what it's being used for in the world at large, but this idea it's somehow conscious or demonic possession could be demystified by internalizing one lecture on LLM architecture, and one lecture on linear algebra
I support endless war with Iran now! And Palantir-powered AI governance! And oh yeah build a White House ballroom for some reason
Not muh father of the vax Trump though, he was either tricked or was using 69D chess and actually using the word "vaccine" to mean ivermectin
It's not a joke, it's serious. The Book of Revelation is the account of vision had by John of Patmos. So what did he actually see? Millions if not billions of people throughout the past couple millennia have tried to make heroic stretches to make the book fit their contemporary setting. If you think about what might have actually been seen or experienced, many of them fall outside the realm of possibility or probability, outside of God deciding that some truly crazy esoterism was in order. It is in an interpretation, as you are saying "there is a reason the building is called Mar-a-Lago" and then going on to link it directly to Scripture. That is an interpretation.
The rhetoric you've used here implies you either did not understand what I was saying, or you did understand and are trying to imply there's some kind of time paradox
"Say 'I'm in pain'"
"I'm in pain"
"OH MY GOD"