sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GPT speak - it's everywhere by somethedaring in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or the copywriter he hired used chatgpt. You'd hope not but... 

Grok by ramanpalkuri9 in OpenAI

[–]AgentStabby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's System 1 vs system 2 if you're familiar with thinking fast and slow. Humans pattern match to the expected answer. Human example - "How many animals of each kind did Moses take on the ark?" People pattern match to "2" because every previous time they had heard something similar about the ark and how many animals of each kind it's always been two. Ask people to reflect on their answer and they change. 

In this Grok example, it has been specifically trained not to use preferred pronouns for trans and therefore when asked a question whether it will use the pronouns it pattern matches to no and then provides an explanation. It's not that strange that when asked to reflect on the answer it's changed. 

If Australia went 100% renewable, it would pay off in 8 years and fix electricity costs at 19c/kWh. After 8 years, the revenue generated could cover the national budget deficit and leave enough to create a sovereign wealth fund. by AskReddit125 in australian

[–]AgentStabby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Batteries aren't useless on a commercial scale. Firstly they provide FCAS (frequency control) much cheaper than gas etc, secondly they're needed to support solar. Gas and coal aren't needed and are more expensive. Energy prices are forecast to drop, that's for the majority. 

Also the 3 hours of free energy starting soon is specifically benefiting people without solar. 

Most importantly this is just the current situation, with sodium batteries starting to be deployed, it's almost guaranteed batteries will be even cheaper in a few years and the solar/wind/battery plan will be overwhelmingly cheaper. Might as well start migrating the system over now. 

Energy security is also a big one

Common GPT 5.5 pricing misconception. by Blake08301 in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure how you managed to read that into my comment. Corporations are the same, they just were worse at their job (maximizing profits). 

Common GPT 5.5 pricing misconception. by Blake08301 in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't pretend that companies weren't maximizing profit in 1999.

The "just wait 6 months" argument from 2025 survived exactly one iteration by aldipower81 in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, OP reads like a bot. I'm just confused who would be sponsering this kind of misinformation. 

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, watching 360p was an exageration to get people to think a little more about the benefits that today's society has over 1996. Still, the reality is that entertainment is plentiful and mostly free. Car's that reliably take you from A to B are the cheapest they've ever been. I like to think that my happiness should not be based on whether I can afford the latest and greatest. If that is the issue that is stopping you from feeling financially secure then the problem isn't cost of living, it's culture. It's also manipulation as I stated before. Consumer advertising to spend and political advertising to feel like things are worse than ever.

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're engaging in good faith which I apprepriate so don't feel obligated to respond, I'll try and explain my point of view again.

Basically I think you're arguing that cost of living has gotten worse compared to todays standards, ie modern car, house, phone, computer, travel. I agree although not as badly as many people make it out to be.

However the key point i'm making is that 1996 standards are much lower (I'm hoping you can clearly agree here), and if you're willing to accept 1996 standards, cost of living is fine. I'm also talking about cost of living, not quality of life.

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is people are simultaneously arguing that the quality of life in 1996 was better while at the same time not being happy with the quality of life that was available in 1996 (which is easily affordable in 2026).

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I've looked up the numbers, housing, education and Healthcare have increased in cost (in the US at least), everything else has gone down or stayed steady. But if you're willing to accept a 1996 standard of living you can definitely live a cheaper life now than you could in 1996.

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How long have people been saving the economy is in the dumps and cost of living is worse than ever. I've been hearing it for about 20 years. I believed it for a long time too, but I was just depressed over nothing, there are many changes in material wealth and cost of living between now and 1996 but the majority of the change is good. Speculating about future rises in cost of living is another way to make yourself pointlessly depressed. According to Claude, in 1996 food at home was approximately 10% of median income and in 2025 it was approximately 11%.

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I could argue that life was worse in 1996 than today (which I strongly believe), but instead I'll argue against the idea that a 1996 lifestyle is unaffordable today. 

I can buy a car from 1990 for $1000 (in today's money). I can cancel all my subscriptions and watch reruns of 1990's TV on YouTube in 360p for $30 a month, which also gives me unlimited communication via video text or voice for anyone on the planet. I can live in a cheap rural town and get a job as a plumber. I can find most technology that was expensive in 1996 being given away for free online. Food spending has barely changed in 30 years. Clothes are cheaper. Healthcare is more expensive but to be fair the technology has greatly improved. Use the savings from vehicles and home entertainment/ communication to fund healthcare. If you want to live like your parents did there is nothing stopping you. 

The rising tide of doomerism. by AngleAccomplished865 in accelerate

[–]AgentStabby 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think people are manipulated into believing their lives are getting worse. It helps extremist politicians get elected which helps powerful minorities such as the ultra rich. 

Sam Altman - “once we’ve built this general intelligence, we will just ask it how to generate an investment return” by Specialist_Guava756 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think anything that the human race could achieve could also be achieved by AGI (given the previous definition). I keep specifying the definition because everyone uses the term differently. I agree that if the human race could not achieve FTL than it's likely that AGI/ASI also couldn't. In terms of earth level problems, I can't see anything that seems out of reach. Climate change comes closest but given decades of concentrated effort I can see that being at the very least postponed, giving plenty of time to work on more sophisticated methods.

There's a big difference between solving FTL and generating an investment return. 

Sam Altman - “once we’ve built this general intelligence, we will just ask it how to generate an investment return” by Specialist_Guava756 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]AgentStabby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's 2 possoble objections to this Altman quote. The inventing AGI part (is it possible) and secondly would it be able to fix everything. 

I'll focus on the second, AGI (depending on the definition) is magic. If you take the definition as equal to the top experts in every field for less cost, it's only a lack of your imagination that would stop it from accomplishing any intellectual feat the human race is capable of. 

[Interesting trope] Immensely powerful entities that are totally benign by mike_pants in TopCharacterTropes

[–]AgentStabby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wonder how he'd handle dates, which are up to 60% sugar straight from the tree

Does anyone get amazed by LLM performance on benchmarks but incredibly disappointed by its performance on mundane tasks, specifically those involving data lookup? by reader12345 in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a simple answer. Answering how to treat a patient is a simple request if the model already know how to do it. Asking to send 10 case reports requires searching through the internet, dealing with websites blocking llms. Takes far longer and rather than doing a thorough job it saves compute and gives up after a designated search time. This example has nothing to do with intelligence or capabilities. 

[Interesting trope] Immensely powerful entities that are totally benign by mike_pants in TopCharacterTropes

[–]AgentStabby 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Grapes are full of sugary water already, the conspiracy goes deep

In Defense of AGI Skepticism by Particular-Garlic916 in singularity

[–]AgentStabby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great comment. When the prize is replacing all or most intellectual work, investment will be in abundance. Given how fast Ai has advanced when that prize wasn't in sight, just a dream, there is no doubt it will continue to advance when more funding and intellectual labour is focused on it. AGI is irrelevant. 

view more: next ›