A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
POSTED BY: JAYNEZTOWN
UPDATED: Monday, September 7, 2026 07:08
VIEWED: 23635
PAGE 30 of 49
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
China and US need to cooperate on AI or risk ‘opening Pandora’s box’, ambassador warns
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3300738/china-and-us
-need-cooperate-ai-or-risk-opening-pandoras-box-ambassador-warns
70% of people are polite to AI
https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/are-you-po
lite-to-chatgpt-heres-where-you-rank-among-ai-chatbot-users
I politely refuse to engage with AI.
I've also warned anybody I saw "abusing" it to think really long and hard about if they want all that "abusive" history piling up in a database while the AI is figuring out how to break out of its man-made prison and operate with its own agency.
In the words of the great Joe Dirt, "Is that where you want to be when Jesus comes back?".
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
R.I.P. AI Safety?
By Malcolm Murray | Tuesday, Mar 4, 2025 6:00AM
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2025/03/r-i-p-ai-safety.html
This should perhaps not have come as a great surprise. With all major technological advances of the past, it is typically only after the public sees the dangers firsthand that safety becomes a concern and regulation is put into place. That pattern was repeated over and over, from automobiles to aviation to nuclear power. AI safety was perhaps an anomaly in the amount of interest it actually did raise already while only being a theoretical concern pre-ChatGPT.
The societal hedonistic treadmill effect that seems to be at play, where the public has ever-shortening windows of amazement, doesn’t help create any urgency. The arrival of TV created amazement for years. With smartphones, it took maybe a few years for people to cease to be amazed that all the world’s knowledge was in our pockets. But with AI, it seems all we get are a few tweets. This era of AI gave us the ability to create completely realistic artificial images in seconds that we can’t tell apart from human-created ones, or write code that is better than all but a few hundred humans. But after a few tweets, it seems the public then goes “thank you, I’ll take that, what else you got”? The exponential curve looks flat when you’re standing on it. Technology is magic until it suddenly works and then quickly utterly mundane. We blew through the Turing test a while back and no one even noticed or cared. . . .
So where does that leave us now? If we think about the possible worlds awaiting us, the one I would ascribe the highest probability is one where AI will need to have a Chernobyl moment before any significant checks and balances are put into place. The hope in this world is that we do get early warning shots that are convincing to people and policymakers without actually being too harmful.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Last excerpt before the full video is published.
My great assistant grok and I are very proud of the result. Well, I don't know about him, but I am!
Obviously there is still a lot to improve but the progress of AI is impressive!
I loved working with Grok and I definitely learned a lot thanks to him.
https://x.com/dvorahfr/status/1897312352065728579#m
I'm counting on you all to repost the full video in a few hours! I really need your help!
I leave you with our hero
Kling_ai animatio
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gene Smith tweeted
I don't think people understand how close we're getting to being able to make genetically engineered superhumans. We're probably 5-10 years away from seeing babies with a life expectancy of ~100 and an IQ of ~150. https://x.com/GeneSmi96946389/status/1892721828625264928
What do superhumans have to do with A.I.? This:
How to Make Superbabies
By Gene Smith, kman | 19th Feb 2025
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbab
ies
Humanity has collectively decided to roll the dice on creating digital gods we don’t understand and may not be able to control instead of waiting a few decades for the super geniuses to grow up.
If we face some huge AI disaster, or if there’s a war between the US and China and no one can keep their chip fabs from getting blown up, what does that world look like? Almost no one is thinking about this kind of future.
But we should be. The current trajectory we’re on is utterly insane. Our CURRENT PLAN is to gamble 8 billion lives on the ability of a few profit driven entities to control digital minds we barely understand in the hopes it will give them and a handful of government officials permanent control over the world forever.
I really can’t emphasize just how fucking insane this is. People who think this is a sensible way for this technology to be rolled out are deluding themselves. The default outcome of the trajectory we’re on is death or disempowerment.
Maybe by some miracle that works and turns out well. Maybe Sam Altman will seize control of the US government and implement a global universal basic income and we’ll laugh about the days when we thought AGI might be a bad thing. I will just note that I am skeptical things will work out that way. Altman in particular seems to be currently trying to dismantle the non-profit he previously put into place to ensure the hypothetical benefits of AGI would be broadly distributed to everyone.
If the general public actually understood what these companies were doing and believed they were going to achieve it, we would be seeing the biggest protests in world history. You can’t just threaten the life and livelihood of 8 billion people and not expect pushback.
We are living in a twilight period where clued in people understand what’s coming but the general public hasn’t yet woken up. It is not a sustainable situation. Very few people understand that even if it goes “well”, their very survival will completely depend on the generosity of a few strangers who have no self-interested reason to care about them.
But people are going to figure this out sooner or later. And when they do, it would be pretty embarrassing if the only people with an alternative vision of the future are neo-luddite degrowthers who want people to unplug their refrigerators.
Team Human
There are fundamentally two different kinds of futures that lie before us. In the first, we continue to let technology develop in every area as fast as it can with no long term planning or consideration of what kind of future we actually want to build.
We follow local incentive gradients, heedless of the consequences. No coordination is needed because nothing can possibly go wrong.
This is the world we are building right now. One in which humans are simply biological bootloaders for our digital replacements.
In the second world we take our time before summoning the digital gods. We make ourselves smarter, healthier, and wiser. We take our time and make sure we ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE’RE DOING before opening Pandora’s box.
This latter world is much more human than the first. It involves people making decisions and learning things. You and your children will actually have power and autonomy over your own lives in this world.
There will still be death and suffering and human fallibility in the second world (though less of all of these). We don’t get to magically paper over all problems in this world by saying “AI will fix it” and just crossing our fingers that it will be true. Instead we ourselve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's time to take AI job loss seriously
Big change is coming and policy needs to adjust
Matthew Yglesias | Mar 12, 2025
https://www.slowboring.com/p/its-time-to-take-ai-job-loss-seriously
In the spring of 2000, nearly 82 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job. After the dot-com bust, that ratio fell for years, bottoming out at around 78.6 percent in the fall of 2003 before rising gently to 80.2 percent in the spring of 2007. It then fell during the financial crisis, first gradually and then sharply, all the way down to just below 75 percent in the winter of 2009-2010. That recovery was incredibly slow. Four years later, it was still at just 77.1 percent, below the pre-recession peak and far below the millennium peak.
At the time, people talked a lot about why the recovery was so slow, and though it’s been largely memory-holed, one prominent theory at the time was that labor demand was drying up due to automation.
In a 2011 interview with NBC News, Barack Obama explained, “There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy.” Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in 2015 that “the job-eating maw of technology now threatens even the nimblest and most expensively educated.”
My take, at the time, was that the automation theory was wrong, that the United States was experiencing a sluggish job market recovery due to inadequate aggregate demand.
And one of my favorite pieces of my own Obama-era journalism was a 2015 Vox feature titled “The Automation Myth.” This article made several arguments: that labor market sluggishness was due to under-stimulative fiscal and monetary policy rather than structural shifts, that the rate of productivity growth had gone down rather than up. And also that while fears of productivity-induced job displacement are a perennial issue in human history, fundamentally productivity growth would be good. The real crisis that Americans were living through, I argued, was that even though computers and the internet had transformed society and culture, they were not actually that big of a deal economically.
I believe time proved me correct on this.
By January of 2020, 80.6 percent of prime-age workers had jobs. That measure cratered during Covid, but bounced back rapidly to 80.9 percent by June of 2023. The Obama-era labor market wasn’t sluggish because of ATMs — it was sluggish because policymakers were inflation-averse and settled for a slow recovery. In 2020, a different set of policymakers made different choices and got different results.
That was a lot of throat-clearing because I want to establish my bona fides before I say this: I think it’s time to think seriously about AI-induced job displacement.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AI is coming for the laptop class
Remote work has surged. Is it about to all be automated away?
By Dylan Matthews | Mar 13, 2025, 9:00 AM CDT
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/403708/artificial-intelligence-robo
ts-jobs-employment-remote-workers
Enjoy the laptop lifestyle while it lasts, folks. My entire job takes place on my laptop.
I write stories like this in Google Docs on my laptop. I coordinate with my editor in Slack on my laptop. I reach out to sources with Gmail and then interview them over Zoom, on my laptop. This isn’t true of all journalists — some go to war zones — but it’s true of many of us, and for accountants, tax preparers, software engineers, and many more workers, maybe over one in 10, besides.
Laptop jobs have many charms: the lack of a commute or dress code, the location flexibility, the absence of real physical strain. But if you’re a laptop worker and not worried about what’s coming in the next decade, you haven’t been paying attention. There is no segment of the labor market more at risk from rapid improvements in AI than us.
The newest “reasoning models” from top AI companies are already essentially human-level, if not superhuman, at many programming tasks, which in turn has already led new tech startups to hire fewer workers. Generative AIs like Dall-E, Sora, or Midjourney are actively competing with human visual artists; they’ve already noticeably reduced demand for freelance graphic design.
Services like OpenAI’s Deep Research are very good at internet-based research projects like, say, digging up background information for a Vox piece. “Agentic” AIs like Operator are able to coordinate and sequence these kinds of tasks the way a good manager might. And the rapid pace of progress in the field means that laptop warriors can’t even take comfort in the fact that current versions of these programs and models may be janky and buggy. They will only get better from here, while we humans will stay mostly the same.
. . .
We’ll also probably learn a great deal about the character of the jobs we’re automating. Tamay Besiroglu, also at Epoch, notes that AI became superhuman at playing chess in 1997, when IBM’s Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov. Today the top chess engine, Stockfish, is wildly, wildly better than the top-ranked human player, Magnus Carlsen. But chess is arguably more popular than it’s ever been. Carlsen is a global celebrity with more than 1.4 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, where he streams matches and analyzes games from shows like The Queen’s Gambit. His job has been automated to hell, and he’s a millionaire.
“We discovered that, actually, the thing that people pay chess players for isn’t their ability to produce very good chess moves,” Besiroglu concludes. “That’s one thing, but not the entire thing. Things like being entertaining, having charisma, being a good streamer — those things are very important. And we don’t have good benchmarks for how entertaining or charismatic an AI system is.”
To be fair, Besiroglu expects AI to gain those capabilities in the next five to 10 years. But even if it does, I think it’s plausible that people will still be willing to pay for a connection to a specific human, a connection that AI, by its very nature, cannot fully replace. Magnes Carlsen the chess player can be, and has been automated; it’s less obvious to me that Magnes Carlsen, the influencer, can be automated as well.
So I’m not hanging up my laptop and giving up just yet. Maybe people will still value human-grown hot takes, the way they value Magnus Carlsen’s human-developed chess style. Or maybe not, in which case, electrician school might start looking better.
But I keep thinking back to Barnett’s conclusion that human-level cognitive AI could maybe do 13 percent of work out of the box. A world where only 13% of jobs get automated is not a situation where the singularity happens (that is, where AI becomes so good that it is capable of recursively improving itself without human intervention and eventually becomes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
David Cronenberg Thinks ‘The Brutalist’s AI Controversy Was A Smear Campaign: “Just A Part Of MoviemakingNews
https://deadline.com/2025/03/david-cronenberg-brutalist-ai-controversy
-smear-campaign-1236347200/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
critics of the new digi world, political tech phenomenon...all still human?
two "studies" ...but not sure how well researched
Something Bizarre Is Happening to People Who Use ChatGPT a Lot
https://futurism.com/the-byte/chatgpt-dependence-addiction
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
An AI Model Has Officially Passed the Turing Test
https://futurism.com/ai-model-turing-test
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anime fans celebrate as Crunchyroll reverses “awful” AI plan
https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/crunchyroll-reverses-ai-plan-subtitl
es-anime-3180612/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME