like a retard probably wouldn't think a pulley was very impressive either

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49469158)

All tech is like this, internet, video games, Phones, you name it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49469159)

Meanwhile Scumfucks get addicted to cod and Losers to all kinds of shit, also Consoomers with huge backlogs.

Also even open is pretty cool if it doesn’t Ruin you.

Chill, high IQ Losers experience none of the ill effects that decimate other people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49469170)

xAI: Scumbag

ChatGPT: Jock

Gemini: Prep

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49469267)

AI has also produced no scientific discoveries.

It has also produced no good art or movies plots or science fiction. You can instantly recognize most AI generated content, even if the chatbots pass the Turing test. Maybe the biggest takeaway is the the Turing test was always flame just like Moore's law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470717)

this is outrageously false

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470723)

AI is accelerating research on complex neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, explained Steven Finkbeiner, a senior investigator at the Gladstone Institutes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470728)

https://a.co/d/d0KzmDz

He says AI is only useful for creative applications and chat bots, and nothing else that's worth a dime

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470733)

"Ackkkkkshually, AI is only going to be useful for producing new music, art, film, and literature, and also for keeping sad/old/isolated people company in an increasingly atomized world that is plagued by a growing loneliness epidemic."

Oh wow... well jeez, that sounds like a bunch of totally worthless shit. Pack it up!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470902)

IDK, I have been very impressed by the strides I've seen it make over the last few years, but this random schizophrenic Jewish man who is poasting anonymously on an internet messageboard claims that ackkkkkkshually it's all a bunch of worthless bullshit that's going nowhere. So now I'm conflicted.

I want to believe my own eyes, but (((the media))) has been assuring me for years now that they constantly lie to me, so I guess I'm just going to have to Trust Jewish Voices(TM) on this one.

AI is pure shit, and it will never turn into anything meaningful. Sad!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470910)

Wut

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470920)

Currently? Definitely yes to the former, maybe yes to the latter. It depends on how you define "original art."

In 10+ years? I see no reason why some future version of ultra-advanced AI won't be able to write original symphonies (novel and beautiful melodies, interesting and brilliant treatment of musical forms, etc.) that are as good or even better than what Beethoven produced, etc. And I see no reason why it won't be able to craft them to be deeply appealing to human listeners. At that point, are we really going to pretend that Beethoven's stuff is meaningfully "better" just because a human held the pen that put the notes to paper?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470924)

This is like asking me if I'm "anti-sun death" because when the sun inevitably dies at some point in the far distant future, it will wipe out all life on Earth.

I mean yeah, that's going to suck. Would be nice if that didn't happen. But it's going to happen regardless of whether I like it or not, just like AI is going to march forward until it eventually reaches Superhuman AGI whether I like it or not. So what's the point of claiming to be "anti-" something that is inevitable? I just hope that we have a decent run until then, and that AGI is merciful towards us when it eventually hits the scene and does whatever it's going to decide to do about humanity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470931)

Yeah, but my point is that realistically none of us can actually stop the former any more than we can stop the latter. All that differs is the probable timeline on which those two events are operating.

Feel free to try, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470944)

https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/three-years-from-gpt-3-to-gemini

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470915)

But back when he wrote that book no one knew how much money would get dumped into this, so he had no reason to sell it. He just gave his honest take on it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470937)

"Back when he wrote that book no one knew how much money would get dumped into this"

FACT CHECK: Actually, Elon Musk famously spent his entire first and only meeting with Obama way back in 2015 begging him to take decisive action to start aggressively regulating AI R&D, because even a decade ago Elon was already insisting that AI was going to become the biggest thing in the world and that it would ultimately decide the fate of human civilization within our lifetimes.

(As usual, Elon was both prescient and correct -- and predictably, Obama didn't do jack shit.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470938)

Sure thing, hoss. ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5803894&forum_id=2Ã#49470946)