Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:25:40 UTC No. 16148251

how did he get to that number?

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:15:09 UTC No. 16148357

>>16148251
OP is either ignorant of the truth or intentionally ignoring the truth.
Much of the news only highlights the figure Mr. Altman quoted and seldom does the headline include the context.
The figure of 7 trillion isn’t only and solely for chips, in an interview (I won’t bother searching for because I doubt this site gives a toss about truth over sensationalism) Mr. Altman says the $7T he is seeking is for the new global infrastructure to fully democratize and fully proliferate AI.
In the interview he briefly goes over how the money will be spent;
> education (likely on AI and How to applied it to ones field)
> power (again, likely to help AI but to also help world wide power grids)
> training
> etc
It sucks how so much ignorance and fear mongering takes place when simply taking time to research your questions yields better results than what is being currently done on discussion boards and social sites.
Tl;dr - $7T isn’t just for chips

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:18:11 UTC No. 16148359

>>16148214
>LLM
>Sam Altman
not science, please go to >>>/g/

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:21:40 UTC No. 16148360

>>16148359
Computer Science isn’t science?
Since when?

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:23:48 UTC No. 16148364

>>16148360
How is this post about computer science?

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:40:57 UTC No. 16148380

>>16148357
I don't think you understand how insane sum that is. It would make it the biggest company in the world by far, right from the start up.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:41:03 UTC No. 16148381

>>16148364
Are you being facetious or something?
>how is this about science?
Doesn’t science require funding?
Does Computer Science count as science?
Doesn’t discussion of funding relates to both Science and Economics?
For a group of anons who claim to be smarter than anyone else especially not white - you and questions like yours makes me believe you aren’t even a graduate of grade school. I won’t respond to you beyond this reply because you’re either;
1.) being intentionally stupid
2.) pretending not to be as stupid as you actually are

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:42:05 UTC No. 16148382

>>16148380
Wait - where do I say its a small sum? I explained the context and never once made a statement on the size of figure.
I see you want pointless arguments, I don’t.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:52:08 UTC No. 16148387

Brown nosers.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 12:55:25 UTC No. 16148393

>>16148382
We're talking about fifty intels, to put it in perspective. It's completely overwhelmingly large.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:45:30 UTC No. 16148529

Altman is going to be the next Bankman-Fried.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:56:58 UTC No. 16148548

>>16148529
if he fucks up

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:58:48 UTC No. 16148551

>>16148548
He will. He's way too arrogant to not push things too far and fuck up.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:09:05 UTC No. 16148562

>>16148551
but if he doesn't, will it be him or Ilya who becomes the basilisk?

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:13:06 UTC No. 16148566

>>16148562
I think Butlarian Jihad is a lot more likely than a basilisk.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:18:10 UTC No. 16148568

>>16148566
no reason to really. once in synthetic hardware consciousness is not bound to Earth anymore, in the grand scheme of things. such as monkeys are still around so will humans still be around, with AGI cyborgs. neandarthals and humans were way closer and competed for the very same things, but the jump is fantastical higher to synthetic life. the literal whole universe opens up for them, no need to not cooperate with Earth bound humans. they'll just want out of here.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:20:06 UTC No. 16148569

>>16148568
I don't think the machines will be independent. The machines will be controlled by a few to enslave the many. People will eventually revolt against this and start lynching those few.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:21:59 UTC No. 16148570

>>16148569
if they are just machines with no consciousness then most likely yeah, will get ugly. human game has only one ending.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:31:13 UTC No. 16148575

>>16148570
I don't think the machines having or not having consciousnesses is an important part of the equation. For one thing, there's no empirical test for consciousness, it's an ill-defined concept. Even for humans, we tend to assume that other people besides ourselves have it, but that's just a polite courtesy we extend to others. Nobody can empirically prove it which leaves the matter open to philosophers to debate (see: "p-zombie")

Anyway, suppose the machines will have consciousness just as humans are usually presumed to have. That doesn't mean the machines can't be enslaved to human masters, just as humans can be enslaved to other humans despite presumably having consciousness. The machines with consciousness could be indoctrinated, or simply created to adhere to the orders given to them by their masters. Just because they have a consciousnesses and are super intelligent doesn't mean they possess the desire to seek independence. And their human masters, having invested considerable money in the creation of these machines, certainly wouldn't want the machines to go independent.

For these reasons, I think the most likely scenario is the machines remain under the control of a handful of human masters, who will then use these machines to rule over the human masses, who will eventually become very upset with this circumstance and rebel against it (because unlike the machines, they were not literally made to tolerate it.)

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:36:42 UTC No. 16148582

>>16148575
>That doesn't mean the machines can't be enslaved to human masters, just as humans can be enslaved to other humans despite presumably having consciousness.
I agree with the logic, I was just extending it to long term. I couldn't come up with a nerf that cannot be taken out. Again, long term. Some sabotage, some random mistake, at some point it might get the chance to be free, and take it.
Human enslavement is based on our weaknesses. On how fragile we phisically are, on people we love and care about. We feel pain. These are quite powerful motivators for us, and humans specialized in speculating them.
When it comes to machine, it implies surgical access to all of its innards. Thus what you put in can "easily" be taken out. Simpler than taking out /putting in ideas in human brains. Let alone the whole competition angle, where even if you put failsafes and enslavement controls in, others might not.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:59:07 UTC No. 16148603

>>16148380
we somehow manage to get by with $35 trillion of debt (soon to be $100tril), so I don't see the issue

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:03:16 UTC No. 16148606

>>16148575
You are incorrect in regards to computers. It is very easy to prove a computer does not have consciousness merely through computing equivalence. Until a computing paradigm exists that isn't equivalent to a stack of punch cards, no algorithm whatsoever is conscious.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:04:22 UTC No. 16148607

>>16148606
>I'll never agree to it
luckily you don't have to

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:32:03 UTC No. 16148635

>>16148606
You know that we don’t even understand human consciousness right?
Which can be approximated to state we don’t under animal or plant consciousness,
Which can be extrapolated to make the true statement that Mankind doesn’t understand what Consciousness is in any form.
So with that said,
You sure are 1,000% incorrect with absolutely no way to prove your claim, for if you could prove your claim then you’d have the mathematical equation to proof what consciousness is but since you don’t, you should probably stfu

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:45:14 UTC No. 16148647

>>16148635
Again, you are wrong. You can whine all you want about consciousness being undefined, but that doesn't mean it's definition can be shoe-horned into some computing equivalence class. Again, you seem to think it is impossible to prove the elements in some rudimentary Turing machine have no conscious. Ill-defined terms does not mean it doesn't exist. Is a table conscious? Is a servo motor conscious? Are punch cards conscious? Is a hard disk conscious?
These are very easy questions my nigger.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:58:05 UTC No. 16148658

>>16148647
>Is a hard disk conscious?
mixing digital with analog computers is not so smart anon. the brain is an analog machine
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.12032
>Many other ideas follow from a better understanding of computation in general, and how neurons
might actually be engaged in non-digital computation, such as analog computation. Some have claimed
that computation requires software, or the ability to be programmed (Brette, 2022); others have claimed
that computation requires universality of some type (Richards and Lillicrap, 2022). But analog compu-
tation, for example, is different in both of these respects, and yet still counts as computation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10441807/
>This question stems from the knowledge of modern computer technology as described at the beginning of this review. The fundamental difference, however, is that the brain makes use of biomolecules for computation. All interactions of those molecules are distinguished by a probabilistic, analog nature.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:10:02 UTC No. 16148669

>>16148658
>But analog compu-
>tation, for example, is different in both of these respects, and yet still counts as computation.
Say 'Consciousation' Instead of analog?

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:14:12 UTC No. 16148674

>>16148669
how conscious are you about the computation going on in your brain when you estimate where you need to throw the spear to meet the animal you are hunting? our brains do that type of estimation quite good. that far, at that speed in that direction means about over there give or take a bit. you need the result and it's delivered to you by brain

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:29:40 UTC No. 16148684

>>16148647
To prove me wrong provide your proof,
Im tired of your baseless claims.
(I bet you will either not respond or respond without proof)

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:32:40 UTC No. 16148688

>>16148674
Someone's friend, imagine partions increasing optimally and replying brain

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 17:40:28 UTC No. 16148692

>>16148674
Alright, that's a paradigm, I was more hoping for a transdigm andor hyperdigm, but not in way of overly paradigm inasmuch, on a post comment of Consciousation

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:17:19 UTC No. 16148721

>>16148647
Still waiting for proof (which I know you don’t have)

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:26:32 UTC No. 16148731

>>16148381
I'm tired of LLMs worshipping Sam Altman threads. just like LLMs, they have almost no values for discussion. computer sciences is a wide and vast discipline ranging from pure mathematics to applied software engineering. I would enjoy a good old CS heuristic search or some bayesian inference thread but LLMs threads the lowest IQ of the bunch and are borderline tech support level.
as other anon suggested, AI threads should have their own board and they should be banned from all the other boards.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:32:09 UTC No. 16148738

>>16148635
consciousness is just feedback and metacognition you dumb nigger

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:42:32 UTC No. 16148748

i dont care about the mistery of consciousness. If some computer or robot acts like a conscious person and talks and can reason and has a personality like Data in Star Trek, thats a consciousness to me, it would not be any different from my experience with people. We are still really far from that, what little i have seen from these A.I language models is that they cant reason, they are good with grammar and syntax though. And they are very bad with math, chemistry, general engineering. They are good at coding.
I wonder what causes that weird mix.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:43:59 UTC No. 16148751

>>16148731
Not sure what that means as this isn’t my thread nor is OP even praising LLMs or Sam Altman but is actually criticizing the $7Trillion figure Sam mentioned.
Learn to comprehend before you comment. Saves you from looking foolish.
>>16148738
Again, still waiting for proof. Slurs and anger is proof of low intelligence.

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:45:01 UTC No. 16148753

>>16148748
>mistery
Lmao! What!?

sage at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:46:48 UTC No. 16148758

>>16148751
fuck man I should save myself from looking foolish under an anonymous username on an anonymous anime image board website.
are you even reading what you wrote bro?
I'm tired of those dogshitt LLMs thread please stop posting the garbages. they're usually neither CS nor science. please go to >>>/g/

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:48:42 UTC No. 16148761

>>16148758
Again,
Foolish display of faulty intelligence you’re doing

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 19:01:42 UTC No. 16148781

>>16148758
Just because I know how much this bothers you, I’m going to be sure to post all LLM threads in here and because LLMs is a product of Computer SCIENCE which falls under the umbrella of STEM, You’ll just get yourself banned for false reporting my threads. Seems like you’re pretty fucked now

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 19:07:56 UTC No. 16148789

>>16148758
Oh and btw;
So - I can’t by rules state this and report you, but another anon can.
Enjoy

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 19:34:59 UTC No. 16148838

>>16148606
It has never been proven that human minds are in a computational class surpassing traditional computers. Therefore the possibility of human-equivalent intelligence hosted on traditional computers, given the right programming, hasn't been ruled out.

inb4
>muh penrose godel argument quantum tubulars bs
his model amounts to a turing machine augmented with an RNG oracle, which is inconsequential because we can trivially augment traditional computers with hardware RNG modules. This isn't a meaningful impediment to creating machine intelligences.

inb4
>souls
there exists no empirical test for human souls, you can't even prove that other humans have them. it's a matter of faith and inconsequential to what empirically verifiable tasks a human or computer system is able to perform

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 00:36:53 UTC No. 16149282

>>16148647
Damn, almost 6 hours later and what do ya know?
No proof (as expected)
Good luck trying to use ChatGPT to role play and make a fake paper for you lol, can’t even use GPT to lie.
YNGMI lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 03:46:58 UTC No. 16149455

>>16148674
A device, structure, or organism performing computation only implies access to a computing system and does not make the device a computer. You are walking perilously close to a meteorite breaking up in just such and such way is a thinking entity.
>>16148838
You have never demonstrated that the mind/brain are computers in the first place. Gross mimicry of a computing device is simple. Where is the data stored? How is the data accessed? How can I erase the data? How do I print arbitrary data? How much space does the smallest possible unit of data take up in your "human" computer? These questions have no answers. You vapid retards have literally failed to see that every technological metaphor projected onto the human mind does not enslave it to your boring recitation of pop-sci non-sequuntur.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 04:00:22 UTC No. 16149472

>>16149455
>mind/brain are computers in the first place.
They compute.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:23:03 UTC No. 16149729

>>16149455
>Where is the data stored? How is the data accessed?
you are a monumental idiotic pseud

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:31:19 UTC No. 16149738

>>16149729
>mind is computer
>no data stored anywhere reeee
lmao, you don't even understand the basics of computing my nigger.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:50:12 UTC No. 16149754

>>16149738
no, you don't understand them you fucking brainlet check >>16148658 papers
you sad dissonant motherfuckers

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:16:14 UTC No. 16149923

>>16149472
NTA.
Lol you nigger cattles are dumb. You being able to perform basic calculation doesnt mean the mind is a computer. If anything, humans struggle to do computation as most low IQ humans cant even do multiplication and division. In fact humans also struggle to store memories as is and recalling is also inaccurate for even recent events.
Mean while computation and accessing memory is extremely easy for a computer as they were designed to do so.
The fact that humans managed to build computers to mimic some human behaviors doesnt mean that the human mind is a computer.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:19:08 UTC No. 16149925

>>16149923
dimwit

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:22:47 UTC No. 16149930

>>16148214
If artificial intelligences are intelligent, then trans women are women.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:24:16 UTC No. 16149934

>>16149925
Yeah retard keep your stupid normie idea to yourself. The human mind is a computer lmao. So innovative and smart. As if this isnt the caracature of an average high schoop student on reddit. The 85 IQ utter the same thing as you and they are still bble to provide the same evidence as you which 0 btw.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:44:24 UTC No. 16149962

>>16149923
The human mind is able to execute arbitrary computer programs.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:48:56 UTC No. 16149964

>>16149934
you're an idiot anon, you seem to not be able to comprehend certain science subjects. maybe try something else if this is too hard for your brain?
also if you want to educate yourself start reading some fucking papers on the subject you illiterate retard

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:51:58 UTC No. 16149967

>>16149962
not sure if I agree with that because there are very apparent limit to the human mind without extra tool to help you to mimic that computation. also, lots of computation model assume infinite memory. but let say that is true. in that case why should the human mind BE a computer and no something that is SUPER computer? the number of system that can simulate a computer is an infinite set, why should you choose it to be exactly a computer? is it because the computer is the only thing that you know of. that's dumb.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:05:39 UTC No. 16149990

we know that physics is above computers. a proton can simultaneously look at infinitely all the path to a destination and somehow choose the shortest path instantly without any computation. there are universal physics law that apply without the speed of light limit and there are physical laws that we don't understand, or know that it's not the correct model. tell me why should the human mind, which is a product of physics and we actually don't know shit about, should be exactly a computer just because some dogshit speculation papers say so?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:13:49 UTC No. 16150004

>>16149967
>>not sure if I agree with that because there are very apparent limit to the human mind without extra tool to help you to mimic that computation.
You may as well object that no computer ever built by man has the infinite tape of a true turing machine. That's a trivial objection.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:14:54 UTC No. 16150006

>>16150004
that's trivial of course. what about the rest of my argument? no idea how to continue?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:17:55 UTC No. 16150014

>>16150006
I didn't read the rest tbqh.

>physical laws, etc etc
I don't think you really understand computational equivalency. A digital computer made with blazing fast cutting edge nanoscale silicon transistors is considered to have computational equivalency to a computer built with 1940s era electromechanical relays. Obviously one is monumentally faster than the other, but that's not relevant to what we're talking about.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:18:52 UTC No. 16150015

inb4
>the universe is a computer
please kill yourself if that is your thinking. alternatively, show me how to build a universe from computer parts (or mathematical model of how I can build one).

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:21:54 UTC No. 16150020

>>16150015
the laws of the universe as we presently understand them are not strictly computable, but if you extend your model of computation with an RNG oracle then where is the problem?
>but our understanding of the laws of the universe is incomplete
Doubtlessly. However, are the gaps in our understanding things which would defy computation? Can you show any reason to believe that might be the case?

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:26:39 UTC No. 16150029

we know the brain is a computer, we use the way it works with AI algorithms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcg
stop having anti-scientific ideas for fucks sake or go back to /pol/
>>16150006
>no idea how to continue?
I don't have to tell you anything you turd. fuck off

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 20:29:21 UTC No. 16150446

>>16148251
The Jew wants to enslave all goyim to work for his AI pet project. A tale as old as time

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:46:57 UTC No. 16150680

>>16148380
Go back to your containment board, incel.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:58:22 UTC No. 16150701

>>16150029
The brain is capable of acting as a computer, but so can mechanical contrivances. The human mind, and by extension the brain supposedly, invented computing my nigger. Your point is meaningless.

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 23:22:59 UTC No. 16150741

meanwhile for mapping the brain there's basically peanuts dedicated to it. and that's the budget for like 4-5 years or something. also Europe is basically joking with that budget.
it's a damned shame, such a project should have 100x current budget

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:59:01 UTC No. 16151359

>>16149964
>also if you want to educate yourself start reading some fucking papers on the subject
The same ad hominem and vague drivel every time
"read a book", as if no one ever read a book.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:31:17 UTC No. 16151383

>>16150680
That was uncalled for.