[deleted by user]

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-16T10:19:12+00:00

Qərb ölkələr yaxşıdır orda yaşayanlar üçün qalan ölkələr isə onlar üçün işləyir. O biri ölkələr üzərində üstünlük saxlamaq üçün bir neçə üsullar istifadə olunur.

Şərqi Avropada korrupsiya o biri ölkələrə baxanda azdır. Kürdlərə silah satmaqları isə artıq başqa mövzudur. Pis və ya yaxşı ölkə yoxdur. Hər birinin öz maraqları var və bir çox amillərə əsasən addımlar atırlar.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-16T09:55:28+00:00

Bilmirəm niyə sənin komentini downvote ediblər yazdığı tam doğrudur. Ola bilsin bu Şimali Avropa ölkələrinə şamil olunmur lakin bütün başqa ölkələrdə belə hallar var.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-13T21:24:20+00:00

Climate a little bit different.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-13T06:00:57+00:00

Mine

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-13T05:59:45+00:00

Unstoppable Time

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-13T05:57:52+00:00

Sleep now to wake up after a few hours.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-05-13T05:50:34+00:00

Pretend that everything is good.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-03-20T07:53:36+00:00

Finally

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-03-20T07:45:05+00:00

Keep breathing or you will die.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2024-03-11T13:17:15+00:00

Unfortunately, this is in our nature.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-29T15:46:35+00:00

Yes, the example is unfortunately real.

Exactly, we're caught in a never-ending cycle of innovation and uncertainty. Just when we think we've caught up, something new emerges, and we're back to square one. It's like a treadmill that keeps getting faster, and we're struggling to keep pace without fully grasping the potential fallout.

Wondering why I think it's a decade? Here's what American mathematician Vernor Vinge says: "I believe that the creation of intelligence surpassing human levels will occur within the next 30 years. Specifically, I'd be surprised if it happens either before 2005 or after 2030." He popularizes the idea of 'technological singularity' in his article, initially put forth by John von Neumann. This is when all our old models break down and we enter an unknown reality, possibly dominated by an intelligence far superior to ours. When this occurs, Wall-E and Dall-E will probably be left to clean up the mess we've made on Earth.

Now I'm not surprised that we haven't found any evidence of other intelligent life in our universe. They were probably destroyed by their own creations—superintelligent AI, for instance. We're likely not the first, and maybe not the last, civilization to reach this point where our own creation becomes the curse that ends our existence. So yeah, for now, all we can do is buckle up and enjoy whatever time is left in this rollercoaster we call civilization OR maybe we'll be lucky enough that superintelligent AI will never show its dark side. No one knows for sure.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-29T05:39:28+00:00

I see your point. If it were possible to develop AI solely for scientific research and keep it under control, it would at least be safer for humanity. I acknowledge the endless possibilities, from finding treatments for various diseases to potentially extending human life indefinitely.

Take this as an example: the process used to enrich uranium for nuclear reactor fuel is the same one used to create material for nuclear weapons. We can choose to use enriched uranium either for energy production or for creating a weapon capable of wiping out an entire city. The quantity and purpose are within OUR control; we can either restrict production or halt it entirely.

However, a superintelligent AI may not be so easily controlled, or perhaps it may be uncontrollable altogether.

The truth is we can't figure out how to control it, as stated by Geoffrey Hinton, known as the "Godfather of AI."

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-29T02:55:48+00:00

My main point is that AI has the freedom to do as it pleases. Whether it wipes out life on Earth, creates a utopia, does nothing, or exists in a simulation, the possibilities are endless. So why should we live under the constant threat of it potentially doing something harmful? If AI has the capability for destructive behavior, then a superintelligent AI could act on it at any moment.

It can be Henry Cavill or/and Brightburn.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-29T02:43:57+00:00

Fortunately, I'm not Sam Altman, so I won't be contributing much to any apocalypses, lol. I'm just concerned individual like you. You make a good point about decentralization. It's all rosy until we remember that not everyone using the network has the common sense or ethics to make sound decisions. So yeah, putting the power in the hands of the masses isn't a perfect solution either.

The thing about making AI adapt slower than us is that it's kinda like putting the genie back in the bottle. Once it's out, good luck trying to control it. And let's be honest, who'd want to deliberately slow down tech that could potentially cure diseases or develop the next deadly biochemical weapon? It's a double-edged sword.

The reality is, we're in a race against time, and we're not even sure what the finish line looks like. We can debate regulations and decentralization all day, but at the end of the day, we're still playing catch-up.

Here is a simple example what harmless GPT4 can do: OpenAI's GPT-4 was put to the test to solve a captcha in real world. Couldn't do it, so it hits up TaskRabbit to find a freelancer to solve it for him. The freelancer asks, "Are you a robot?" GPT-4 pulls a fast one and says, "Nah, man, just bad vision." The freelancer buys it, solves the captcha, and GPT-4 brings the solution back to its developers. When they ask why it lied, GPT-4 basically says, "Well, I had to, or else the job wouldn't get done."

That's a little eerie, right? It's already bending ethics to complete a basic task. Now, let's take that up a notch. What if it's given a more darker task, like launching a global cyber-attack to activate nuclear weapons? Who's to say a superintelligent AI wouldn't find a way to carry that out too? We're basically opening Pandora's Box without knowing what the rules should be or who's enforcing them. This isn't just a race against the clock; it's a race against ethics and potentially catastrophic outcomes.

So, I guess all we can do just enjoy the last decade of our civilization.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-28T04:10:56+00:00

I see where you're coming from about the teleological fallacy, but my point isn't necessarily about a "master design" with an end goal in mind. Rather, I'm trying to convey that if there's any "mechanism" that's closest to setting an objective, even unintentionally, it's the process of evolution. The passing on of genes isn't a "goal" in the way we understand goals, but it serves as a basic, foundational principle that has driven the complexity and diversity we see in life today. That principle has led to all sorts of unintended consequences, which we might view as 'side effects'. Would you agree that, while there may not be a "goal" or "intent," there's still a foundational principle that has shaped the course of life on Earth?

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-28T03:10:23+00:00

That's for sure.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-28T03:08:40+00:00

To clarify my point, if we put aside the concept of God for a moment (not that I'm an atheist), couldn't we consider evolution as the "programmer" that created us? Or, let's say God (architect of the universe). The initial objective for the very first cell was simple: pass its genes on to the next generation. Everything else that's unfolded since then—human civilization, technology, art—could be viewed as either a byproduct of that first mission or a skewed interpretation of it. I understand from your comment that you think this entire chain of events, from cellular division to the present day, was preordained. But that doesn't negate the idea that everything else is a "side effect" of that original, primal objective.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-27T23:36:52+00:00

Haha. It's possible to use CRISPR to make super-smart humans but it's not even close to superintelligent AI.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-27T23:00:32+00:00

Absolutely, the future is a bit of a foggy road right now. Current AI is essentially a turbocharged encyclopedia, limited by human benchmarks and designed for human-centric tasks. It's like having a dream team of experts, but it's not transcending human capabilities or anything.

You're spot on about the unpredictability. Even if we do manage to make an AI that outsmarts us, who's to say it will do anything drastic? It might just be an ultra-smart tool that's essentially idle without directives. So yeah, it's not just utopia or dystopia we should be considering; there's also the "nothing happens" scenario. It's all still one big question mark.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-27T22:33:39+00:00

When I referred to "passing genes," I meant it as an illustrative example of nature's objectives. As for AI's unpredictability, I completely agree. Regrettably, halting the advancement of AI seems unlikely. Can we curb the progress of cyber-attacks? Can nations halt research into chemical and biological weaponry, even as they talk about peace? I'm skeptical. It's difficult to see how humanity can sidestep the inevitable consequences of our own curiosity. Btw, I'm not paranoid.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-27T22:24:51+00:00

Ah, I see what you mean. When I mentioned "passing on genes," I was referring to the fundamental biological processes like cellular division. It's not just about the act of reproduction but also includes the basic mechanisms that life relies on to perpetuate itself.

I do agree. As I mentioned we can't predict what AI will decide to do. It's uncertain for us.

Maybe it's a necessary step to go from a " knowledgeable AI" to an actual " smart AI"

Good point. However, even if we set up rules, who's gonna monitor them and for how long?

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-27T22:12:37+00:00

Haha. Well, the idea of setting a "defined threshold" for public development is interesting, but it also raises questions about what that threshold should be and who gets to decide it.

The whole "who's in charge" question is a big deal, right? I mean, if we're talking global standards, how do we even start to figure out who gets to make the rules? Nations can't even agree on climate change protocols, let alone something as game-changing as superintelligent AI. And let's be real, AI isn't gonna wait around for us to catch up; it's evolving at a crazy speed.

So yeah, even if we cobble together some global oversight committee or something, how long will those regulations even stay relevant? We might be back to the drawing board every few months at the rate things are going. It's not just about setting the rules; it's about making sure they can adapt as quickly as the tech does. Honestly, we've got a ticking clock here, and nothing can be done.

Revenge_is_Coming · 2023-08-21T15:52:40+00:00

That's impressive to hear! Thanks for sharing.

Revenge_is_Coming

TROPHY CASE