You seem to know very little about WWII and how it was won. You also seem to know very little about US foreign policy after WWII - which, frankly, puts you in the same boat as the current administration. They have no clue how the US leveraged WWII to establish global dominance, and because they don’t understand that history, they have no idea how to maintain it. Here's a hint: it's not with armaments.
There's a very important lesson to learn from Google: companies say and do one thing when they're the underdog and then say and do something completely different when they're the top dog.
There's no reason to think OpenAI is any different.
And incredibly responsive compared to the operatings systems of even today. Imagine that: 30 years of progress to end up behind where we were. Human input should always run at the highest priority in the system, not the lowest.
When I first started using QNX back in 1987/88 it was distributed on a couple of 1.4MB floppy diskettes! And you could install a graphical desktop that was a 40KB distribution!
Why are we still talking about “Quantum Mechanics” when Quantum Field Theory has been the foundation of quantum theory since the mid-20th century and eliminates those paradoxes? The Standard Model, one of the most successful theories in science, is built entirely on QFT. It’s time the conversation caught up and we stop obsessing over ‘wavefunction collapse’ and ‘observer’ nonsense.
And a Yamaha MT-07 will give you more thrill for your buck! OR - you could buy a new MT-07 and a used ND2 Miata for less than the cost of a new ND2 Miata and have loads of fun!
Maybe - if you're willing to endure the dystopian nightmare of letting the less fortunate suffer and die. And if you are willing to let the less fortunate suffer and die, then I guarantee there's someone above your paygrade who thinks the same as you and will gladly watch you suffer and die.
Journalists don't run climate models. As far as why nobody else has run the models to check - well, they're busy with their own research. It may take a couple of seasons of no hurricanes making landfall on the US mainland before we see this season as not being an anomaly and worthy of further research.
When AI first passed the original Turing Test in spirit - producing text indistinguishable from a human - we didn’t declare machines intelligent. Instead, we raised the bar: now we ask if they can create music, art, or literature that feels human.
But if every time AI meets the challenge, we redefine the challenge, are we really measuring intelligence - or just defending human exceptionalism? At what point do we admit that creativity isn’t a mystical trait, but a process that can emerge from algorithms as well as neurons?
Here’s the real question: should we measure AI against the best humans can do - Einstein, Picasso, and Coltrane - standards most humans themselves can’t reach? Or should we measure success by how well AI enables the next Einstein, Picasso, and Coltrane?
I think we need to move to the era of Assisted Intelligence, a symbiotic relationship between AI and human intelligence.
> At what point do we admit that creativity isn’t a mystical trait, but a process that can emerge from algorithms as well as neurons?
I think anyone who already works in a creative field does acknowledge this. Creativity is, in fact, a process, and a skill that can be broken down into steps, taught to others, and practiced. Graham Wallas broke down the creative process all the way back in the 1920s and it boils down to making novel and valuable connections between existing ideas. What does an LLM do other than that exact process?
So we agree? I think one of the problems people have with creativity and AI is they associate creativity with something spiritual and so bristle at the thought of AI being creative because they believe machines have no soul.
I'm an optimist. I think what AI is going to do is show us what it truly means to be human.
reply