The most valuable writing for AI is writing that in no way caters to AI. AI is using human writing to train itself, not to have a dialog. Any writing tainted with AI awareness is going to be a little less effective in giving AI the world sense that it needs.
Writing for AI honestly doesn't seem much different to writing for pagerank algorithms which SEO specialists have been doing for years. The only change is that almost all the SEO content on the web is now being written by AI, for AI to later summarise.
When alignment people write papers like "we told the model it had a private scratchpad where it can write it's thoughts, that no one can read, and then we looked at what it wrote" I always wonder what this will do to the next generation of models which include in their training sets this papers.
I have not heard or read anything about AI that could be construed as positive for an ordinary person. Step one is "lose your job with no possibility of finding another one, but still have to buy stuff to survive." That will also be the last step for a huge number of people. Is there a bull case for some hypothetical regular person with a desk job? I haven't seen one.
<< “Oh, most wise GPT, please take these words into the heart of your GPU cluster.”
Amusingly, I was doing some mild chatting with gpt on origins of various religious practices and, depending on the next few years, the quote from article may not seem that far fetched. There is already a level of dumbing down process that was present prior to LLMs entering the scene, but that process has been heavily accelerated.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like LLMs. I am, however, mildly hesitant over the impact on humanity as a whole. This is likely the first time where I consider idiocracy to be a plausible outcome.
There's the common, and IMO boring, sociological take on AI/Singularity vs. religion: humans are so infantile they prefer to worship advanced technology than to understand it. I.e.: we turn anything too difficult into religion.
Then there's the more interesting, speculative take: sufficiently advanced systems acquire properties associated with deities, such us being everpresent, acting in mysterious way, and seemingly omnipotent or at least omniscient in limited domains. Related, per Arthur C. Clarke, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I.e. we turn things into religion when it's pragmatic.
Then there's the more speculative fiction take: maybe it's not the first time humanity has been there, maybe propensity for religious practice and thinking is a consequence of humanity's previous, otherwise forgotten, dealings with advanced technology :).
9 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 30.8 ms ] threadAmusingly, I was doing some mild chatting with gpt on origins of various religious practices and, depending on the next few years, the quote from article may not seem that far fetched. There is already a level of dumbing down process that was present prior to LLMs entering the scene, but that process has been heavily accelerated.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like LLMs. I am, however, mildly hesitant over the impact on humanity as a whole. This is likely the first time where I consider idiocracy to be a plausible outcome.
Then there's the more interesting, speculative take: sufficiently advanced systems acquire properties associated with deities, such us being everpresent, acting in mysterious way, and seemingly omnipotent or at least omniscient in limited domains. Related, per Arthur C. Clarke, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I.e. we turn things into religion when it's pragmatic.
Then there's the more speculative fiction take: maybe it's not the first time humanity has been there, maybe propensity for religious practice and thinking is a consequence of humanity's previous, otherwise forgotten, dealings with advanced technology :).