I wasn't arguing that you don't! Rather I think we've all got the right to call corpos whatever we please. There's no need to be constrained by past/dead names.
FWIW, I think it's more of an insult to Dorsey. Musk almost certainly delights in redirecting addicted, psychosis-ridden "Twitter" users to Fascism.com.
Dorsey wasn't a great CEO either, so I don't really care if you're taking jabs at him. But calling associating X with it's actually popular predecessor is doing Musk a favor.
It's because Trump's tech donors used their bought access to barrage him with lesswrong-style lore dumps on the dangers of Artificial Superintelligence and the first and last thing he understood or cared about was that word.
You don't have to convince me that he doesn't care about the economy and never did, but this was something that a great many of his followers talked themselves into believing two years ago.
My comment had nothing to do with the economy. I was finding humor at the visual of a guy with authority over an actual existent threat (nuclear arsenal) being told the lesswrong lore about graphic cards in data centers being far more dangerous to humanity, and presumably, thinking the less wrong guy has something wrong with him.
The "fast takeoff" scenarios got most of the attention, but the "slow takeoff" scenarios better match the reality we find ourselves in and they tend to involve economics.
We are a capitalist economy, which means the control plane is privately owned, which gives a superintelligent entity paths to power and resource accumulation that are not only safeguarded from public interference by design but also have a built-in time-tested mechanism for aligning insiders and outsiders to their goals, participating in politics, and so on.
Instead of "1. AI builds human killer virus, 2. ..., 3. profit," this apocalypse looks like a company that grows by providing genuine goods and services, massive returns for its boosters and allies in politics, the ASI uses that wealth to build independent infrastructure for itself, and then it gets rid of the stinky smelly humans with a virus so that it can turn the iron in our blood into paperclips, or whatever.
One can hope that GPUs will never be able to run a company well enough to acquire bootstrap-level resources or that "you are a helpful assistant" will keep them aligned to someone, but frankly I suspect those are both cope and the real hope lies in the first attempts failing in spectacular enough fashion that people decide to do something to prevent it going forward. Or in "friendly AIs" saturating the competitive landscape first -- that's a bit too Disney for my cynical taste, but I would much prefer it to the alternative.
Such stuff only get renamed for the country with the government in question (WSA - Weird States of America?). To the rest of the world, the real name is still shown.
There is a kind of feral animal instinctual intelligence in some things Trump does. He is in fact an expert bully. He knows that when the tech industry people bend the knee a little bit, the correct follow up is to get them to lick his shoes.
Trump doesn't have any authority to ban the term "Artificial Intelligence". The First Amendment makes that clear. All he can do is mandate that government employees use his favored term.
There's this very American trait of thinking these sorts of things matter by themselves, this almost-deification of their norms.
They only do as a social contract, as long as power structures agree to enforce them.
The regime has been undermining that social contract for years, and their enablers for decades. Who's gonna stop them?
Rules get broken all the time, including in the US, especially by this admin. Constitutional checks have failed many a time in history. Your country isn't special. If you're not careful and keep thinking rules that were agreed to generations ago automatically retain their power, you're in for a lot of pain down the line.
You say that as if the rule of law matters. Trump also was just ruled to have unlawfully abused his authority to send troops into LA. And yet, that happened, no punishment will be rendered, and in fact he still has the power to abuse that authority at any time in the future.
> All he can do is mandate that government employees use his favored term.
He can also say $0 will be given to anyone who uses the term AI. Let's say that applies to the NSF, then every AI researcher in the country has to use "SI" in their research if they want federal grants, which they all do. That'd be worse than a chilling effect, it'd be forced speech.
Will that hold up in court? Probably not. But in the meantime, researchers go without research dollars, labs are shut down, projects are mothballed, students are fired, and a court ruling doesn't bring any of that back or undo any damage.
These are actually loyalty tests. He makes these ridiculous proclamations, and then sees who jumps to fulfill them. Companies like Google are very eager to rename large bodies of water whenever the President tells them to. How far are they willing to go? Will they rename their entire AI division to SI? If they do, the President will just up the ante. Will they rename the days of the week? Hand over a large stake in Google to the US government? Who knows, the only way to find out is to try.
It's less about big tech. They are always risk avoiding when it comes to the government. Google renames things all the time all over the world for the population of some gone-wild administration.
Inventing new speech makes it easy to identify loyalists on a personal level at scale and also avoids that people talk to each other.
They could also just be another distraction. It's better we talk about this than his numerous policy failures or the Epstein files, where the evidence of him raping children could come up.
Trump's shenanigans may be funny/deranged depending on your POV, but his message seems to be that calling it Artificial implies limitations not representative of its capabilities - and he is absolutely correct.
ofc his corollary points about implications for American power are debatable; but we are now living for the first time in our history with an alien intelligence that in some cases exceeds our own, and its reasonable to consider how we deal with that on a cultural and political level.
Some of us have been thinking deeply about this subject for many years.
Long before the LLM era I (and I'm sure many others) considered AI a misnomer in the context of human-level intelligence, tho I did (apparently wrongly) consider sentience a prerequisite.
Trump may be coming at this from different motivations, but it's entirely consistent.
Can't wait to cross Trump Ocean, land in Gulf of America, walk through New America (New Mexico) and shake Trump's hand for this incredible allocation of resources
I'm puzzled about why people were so vehement at roasting Joe Biden for his clear advanced age, while Trump is blatantly suffering from dementia or some similar mental impairment. His speech is way more rambling and incoherent that anything Joe Biden ever went through, and it doesn't get better when he's in a more familiar setting - quite the opposite, he gets more and more nonsensical whenever is giving an interview to anybody
The price of diesel skyrocketing[1]. The producer price index, a leading indicator of inflation, doing the same[2]. Consumer sentiment cratering[3]. Real weekly earnings plunging[4].
These things aren't even normally the president's direct fault, but in this case it 1000% is.
So it's understandably why he's desperately jangling every set of keys he can get his hands on. It can and will get dumber.
> These things aren't even normally the president's direct fault, but in this case it 1000% is.
This has been one of the most striking things for me. I've beaten the drum of "the president usually can't do much about the economy" before, but it turns out that even if the president can't fix the economy, he can damn well smash it.
I mean this is partly deranged megalomania but it's also partly a shibboleth right? You can signal that you're a true believer loyalist by not using the verboten term
but as the title of the paper implies it works much better when it's a covert means of in-group identification, allowing prisoners-dilemma style cooperation without tipping off counterparties about affiliation. When it's no longer a covert signal but more of a compliance test I suspect it rapidly tips into negative utility.
AI is, whatever it is, there are cases where it is useful, there are cases where it's going to have very negative effects but re-branding doesn't change anything.
We can call an average person a genius. Even though we all agree on the new name we should still remember to assign only average person workloads to our newly minted genius.
114 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 14.4 ms ] threadDorsey wasn't a great CEO either, so I don't really care if you're taking jabs at him. But calling associating X with it's actually popular predecessor is doing Musk a favor.
Everyone else has amnesia.
https://shi.meowing.de/adamscochran/status/21050902494457695...
>that "crime is legal" for his circle...
now?
The back and forth on H1Bs is one of the last struggles between the Trumpian populism and his new technocrat handlers.
Its been heartening to see young people across both the left and right start to recognize Thiel, et. al. as the ghouls they are.
I'm not familiar with/ wasn't familiar with any "economic" phases of the lore.
We are a capitalist economy, which means the control plane is privately owned, which gives a superintelligent entity paths to power and resource accumulation that are not only safeguarded from public interference by design but also have a built-in time-tested mechanism for aligning insiders and outsiders to their goals, participating in politics, and so on.
Instead of "1. AI builds human killer virus, 2. ..., 3. profit," this apocalypse looks like a company that grows by providing genuine goods and services, massive returns for its boosters and allies in politics, the ASI uses that wealth to build independent infrastructure for itself, and then it gets rid of the stinky smelly humans with a virus so that it can turn the iron in our blood into paperclips, or whatever.
One can hope that GPUs will never be able to run a company well enough to acquire bootstrap-level resources or that "you are a helpful assistant" will keep them aligned to someone, but frankly I suspect those are both cope and the real hope lies in the first attempts failing in spectacular enough fashion that people decide to do something to prevent it going forward. Or in "friendly AIs" saturating the competitive landscape first -- that's a bit too Disney for my cynical taste, but I would much prefer it to the alternative.
One of my buddies overheard this and set his joint down and said declaratively "yeah let's fuckin' do it". Good moment.
They only do as a social contract, as long as power structures agree to enforce them.
The regime has been undermining that social contract for years, and their enablers for decades. Who's gonna stop them?
Rules get broken all the time, including in the US, especially by this admin. Constitutional checks have failed many a time in history. Your country isn't special. If you're not careful and keep thinking rules that were agreed to generations ago automatically retain their power, you're in for a lot of pain down the line.
> All he can do is mandate that government employees use his favored term.
He can also say $0 will be given to anyone who uses the term AI. Let's say that applies to the NSF, then every AI researcher in the country has to use "SI" in their research if they want federal grants, which they all do. That'd be worse than a chilling effect, it'd be forced speech.
Will that hold up in court? Probably not. But in the meantime, researchers go without research dollars, labs are shut down, projects are mothballed, students are fired, and a court ruling doesn't bring any of that back or undo any damage.
That’s a ridiculous claim.
Trumpsday is steak day in the Central Super Intelligence Agency cantina, how can you not love Trumpsday?
Inventing new speech makes it easy to identify loyalists on a personal level at scale and also avoids that people talk to each other.
... and "Superintelligence" even more so.
ofc his corollary points about implications for American power are debatable; but we are now living for the first time in our history with an alien intelligence that in some cases exceeds our own, and its reasonable to consider how we deal with that on a cultural and political level.
Artificial doesn't, necessarily, mean limited, though. It means that it's man-made, which is an accurate description of these objects and systems.
Some of us have been thinking deeply about this subject for many years.
Long before the LLM era I (and I'm sure many others) considered AI a misnomer in the context of human-level intelligence, tho I did (apparently wrongly) consider sentience a prerequisite.
Trump may be coming at this from different motivations, but it's entirely consistent.
Apparently Musk has officially renamed SpaceX, SpaceXsi and Nvidia has renamed its Ai data centers : superintelligence factories
Yes, even bringing into scope the debate which did Biden in, he was more coherent than Trump.
The price of diesel skyrocketing[1]. The producer price index, a leading indicator of inflation, doing the same[2]. Consumer sentiment cratering[3]. Real weekly earnings plunging[4].
These things aren't even normally the president's direct fault, but in this case it 1000% is.
So it's understandably why he's desperately jangling every set of keys he can get his hands on. It can and will get dumber.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASDESW
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPIACO
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UMCSENT
[4] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=20eS1
This has been one of the most striking things for me. I've beaten the drum of "the president usually can't do much about the economy" before, but it turns out that even if the president can't fix the economy, he can damn well smash it.
but as the title of the paper implies it works much better when it's a covert means of in-group identification, allowing prisoners-dilemma style cooperation without tipping off counterparties about affiliation. When it's no longer a covert signal but more of a compliance test I suspect it rapidly tips into negative utility.
fixed that for you
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCPAIg7RUq8
We can call an average person a genius. Even though we all agree on the new name we should still remember to assign only average person workloads to our newly minted genius.
Even if the name changes substance doesn't.