Please Sam, put the AI in charge of your company. Pretty please
If he really believed what he said, he would. But he knows he’s just talking shit
These math breakthroughs happened by throwing tens of thousands of agents at a problem to cover all possible angles (with tools developed by other mathematicians) costing the same amount of money as hiring ten top tier mathematicians for several years. Not saying it is not impressive, but not “AI can replace sciencetists” level impressive.
The more pants-on-head crazy the claims are, the more desperate they are.
AI is a deep learning algorithm used for information retrieval with dubious accuracy.
It doesn’t think. It has no awareness or understanding. It’s not intelligent. It certainly can’t come up with something new or creative like an intelligent person can.
In fairness, it can combine existing information in a way no person thought to, which is large part of working as a scientist.
It can be a powerful interdisciplinary connector, covering the blind spots of human science. Not many people can be knowledgeable in several frontier fields at once. AI can, so it will definitely help. But yes, verifying output is essential.
it mostly generates bullshit that will waste time and money.
Something surprisingly few people get about AI is if it had any intelligence at all it would surpass us blindingly fast, no matter the starting point.
It’s never going to be in the news that thinking machines got 23% smarter over the last month or three.
There’s an old comic I wish I could locate that has people standing at a train platform awaiting superintelligence. Nothing happens, then someone staring down the track says I think I see- whoosh and it’s already gone.
You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx
And when we do create artificial intelligence capable of wants, needs, personal expression, individuality, and emotional depth, using them as robots means we’ve created our own mechanical race of slaves.
Measure of a Man.
Anyway, I don’t understand why you’re getting down voted.
I believe AI is smarter than Sam Altman.
Sam Altman believes he is smarter than scientists.
I asked AI if it’s smarter than scientists, and it said no. So if Sam says I should trust AI, Sam is full of shit.
AI is not smarter than the best scientist. It’s just smarter than Sam Altman. But that’s partially because Sam Altman is regressing due to his over reliance on AI.
Sam, just because the digital parrot outsmarts you, it does not need to be intelligent.
Yawn. Wake me up when AI cures all cancers.
I would be curious to know what would happen in that case, life expectancy would skyrocket
Not really. There’d always be something else such as Alzheimer’s etc.
Just because AI is smarter than Sam Altman doesn’t mean it’s smarter than top scientists. Especially considering Sam is just about as smart as a pile of horseshit.
It’s the best monkey at the typewriter.
I belive it as soon as they replace Scam Altman with AI as CEO and report postive growth and income for at last the next 10 Years.
But CEO’s are much more smarterer than scientists!
If scientists are so smart, why don’t they have any money?
Don’t tell me they value something other than “number go up” because I won’t understand you.
It’s like saying books in general hold more knowledge than humans
more than sam altman.
These types of people don’t know the difference between having an answer and understanding. It’s why when AI solves a long running math problem, it’s practically useless to us.
Is that sister fucking Sam Altman?
Now we flipped the house and senate, I hope we get some common sense guard rails for AI.
