Exactly. In the 80’s I was doing CNC programing on a system that actually comprised of half the floor space of a high-rise building in NYC. I was in Okmulgee OK at the time. I have no doubt that the heat signature of that building was visible from space!
That was server after server working together to do just what my phone can do now. Imagine an 80 story building filled with super computers working in tandem using artificial intelligence.
Technology is still expanding at breakneck speed and no mortal knows just where it will end or how fast it is growing. You say Moore’s Law is no longer in effect. I believe that the time it takes for technology is no longer 2 years (Moore’s Law). In fact, I believe that timeline has been reduced.
We, the common people of this world, are like Sergeant Schultz. We know NOTHING!
Do you really think that those in charge allow us to know just how fast this thing is developing!?
I think not.
They have us playing with Etch A Sketch and we think it’s cutting edge… That’s so cute… Bless their hearts.
That’s just the ramblings of an old hillbilly. What do I know.
NOTHING!!!
I’m not sure I understand the motivation or the motive to keep technology secret. Isn’t capitalism supposed to bring all the best products to market efficently…snark.
But seriously why keep consumers jn the dark instead of selling the latest gizmo or whatchadoomie.
That’s a very bleak outlook about your fellow human beings. Are you including yourself in the assessment that mankind is bad and evil for existing, and generally exists as a harm?
I think it’s slowing down because we’ve reached the limit of what they want the Public to have.
I don’t think Aladdin AI development has slowed down. I don’t think the people who fund and run such things worry about running into the “physical limits” when they have no real limits of money, power, or space to use for these things…
you can think all you want but look at the manufacturing. it reached where it is getting very expensive (not cost effective) to go smaller than 9 microns (i think that was it) in the die because it wasn’t getting enough gains. the other part is the false gains reported by programming and not actually getting smaller is a real thing. some of the improvements carried their very own vulnerabilities that turned out very hard to fix. it’s actually a complex set of things that ended moore’s law and you should read about it. i don’t have any links but read some in depth things about it a few years ago. you should have enough info to get a search going if you want to.
Oh, I don’t think we can infinitely go smaller, but that processing increasing exponentially is still true anyway as you say because of software and other types of hardware breakthroughs, like being able to solve nonlinear differentials in binary easier or literally processing at the speed of light.
Moores Law is like 1950’s thinking. My iphone does 11 trillion floating points per second of possible computation. When quantum computing becomes more reliable, There will be nearly infinite possible combinations of 0 and 1 where 0 is positive and 1 is negative. There will most likely be other ways to make current technology be extended also.
Dont make the machine better, make the instructions better. Since AI can improve coding with human intervention and eventually without, everything will be better.
that doesn’t count though, not to moore’s law. also, any software advantages don’t do much to make a chip smaller, which is what moore’s law is all about. the thing that should be worrisome with ai is quamtum computing, if that gets to a reasonable size. another thing, we don’t need to get any smaller with the chips, it does just fine right now. i have a computer in my pocket better than the one that got a man on the moon and back safely, i think the size no longer matters much.
edit: i should’ve waited and read that comment first.
Also, the “quantum computing” we have now, the Microsoft “qubit” isn’t real quantum computing and is physically more something like trinary, where you’re adding possible complexity by have a lock toggle to another bit - and increasing your total possible UUID and number of states does increase computing by a certain factor, it never TRULY breaks away from the need for processes to be handled back down at the binary level.
The amount of power and cooling it takes for this difference also makes it not much of a net gain.
tl;dr - The “qubit” is a marketing gimmick and we still don’t have real Quantum Computing.
I didn’t finish the post, had a lot going on. My hope is that bringing back Sam Altman, he and the board will continue to try and have AGI make a difference in good ways. Corporate wanted him out to make more money anyway way possible. As for a bleak outlook, all of the following are True…
Over the last 500 years, 1300 species (that we know of) have gone extinct.
In the last 50 years, the population sizes of animals have decreased by more than two-thirds.
One million plant and animal species are currently under threat of extinction.
Insects are disappearing around the globe.
Since the cultural revolution 11,000 years ago, vegetation biomass (the amount of vegetation on the planet) has decreased by half.
Humans have altered nearly two-thirds of the Earth’s surface.
We have lost 85% of the global wetlands in the last 300 years.
Humans have compromised more than 60% of the world’s oceans.
Live coral reefs have been halved in less than 200 years.
We lost seagrass at a rate of 10% per decade in the last 100 years.
Kelp forests have declined by 40%.
There are fewer than 30% of the world’s large predatory fish than 100 years ago.
AI used for preservation of the people and the planet are in motion and more incredible uses are being proposed everyday. I’ve been following OpenAI’s progress since their VR days and been worried about the dangers of AI that corporations/Governments and bad people are going to continue to squeeze the life out of planet and the people.
Why are you listing these things, though? Are you saying humans are the cause of all of them, and that the rest of the world would be better off if we got Bill Gatesed? That just me breathing is “choking life out of the planet”? Because I still think that’s bleak and presumes that these harms are inherent properties of human existence rather than out of hand industrial practices.
I don’t think either of us thinks the current way things are done is the only way.
Reading through this…and an honest question would be:
How is our reaction to AI any different than if we came face to face with God, or an alien life-form…I mean REAL PROOF, face to face Q&A??
We fear what is different or hat we do not completely understand and have all the answers to.
This was true during every turn of Human advancement.
They SWORE that Locomotives (Then cars, then planes) would end civilization as we know it. Yes- it CHANGED civilization- but did not destroy it.
All we need for AI to NOT be ‘‘the end of mankind’’ is for those helping it evolve to make damned certain it remains dependent on a power source that WE control.
Ya know the expression ''if it bleeds we can kill it?"
If it needs power, we can unplug it.
JMO
Humans are the Herpes of the planet…just saying…
We COULD have been good caretakers… preserving, working WITH instead of AGAINST nature and STILL flourished.
But mankind’s inherent Greed and sense of superiority prevented that.
It’s not my position that “Nothing ever goes extinct”. No. I don’t declare an absolute like that. I’m denying one.
It’s my position that absence of disproof
is not proof that a theory is true,
and that there can be no such thing as a Proof of Absence.
This is why, logistically speaking, the burden of proof rests on Positive claims - things that can be observed, tested, falsified. Known.
“All men are mortal” we can test logically.
“Baking soda is non-reactive” is a position we can test Scientifically. (It’s falsified.)
“Everywhere you’re unable to see, there’s an invisible unicorn” is not falsifiable. That’s not a Scientific theory, because there’s no way to test it. That’s a pretty foundational Scientific requirement.
“Everywhere you’re unable to see, there’s no more polar bears” is
for exactly the same reasons not a Scientific OR Logically derived theory.
Not even if the term is really popular and frequently used.
Dangit!!! I knew it!! I’ve chased that critter around hundreds of corners! I just know he’s there and then… POOF! He’s not there when I bust around that corner!!!
I’ll catch that sucker someday. You just bet on it.
