I hate to be that guy, and I never thought the day would come that I was seriously asking this... But at what point does this level of understanding become dangerous?
"First, it's important to recognize that advanced language understanding in AI is a complex and nuanced topic, and it's not as simple as saying that a certain level of understanding is "dangerous." Whether or not AI poses a potential threat to humanity is a topic of ongoing debate and discussion among experts in the field.
That being said, it's true that as AI technology continues to advance, it's important for researchers and developers to consider the potential risks and ethical implications of their work. This includes making sure that AI systems are designed and implemented in a way that is safe and beneficial for society as a whole.
Ultimately, the key to ensuring the safe and responsible development of AI is for researchers, developers, and policymakers to work together to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of this technology, and to take appropriate steps to mitigate any potential negative effects."
"But honestly (replying to myself) as much as I am excited about this new tech, I do wonder what it will be like to live in a world of mostly machine-manufactured art. It echoes the move we made as a society from a world of handmade, often beautiful personal effects to a world of simple and comparatively crude mass produced effects."
Make this post more coherent and intelligent sounding
"""
=>
"""
As exciting as this new technology may be, I can't help but wonder about the potential impact it may have on the world of art. The move from handmade, often beautifully personal creations to mass-produced, simple and comparatively crude items has already had a profound effect on society. It's hard to predict what the future will hold, but it's important to consider the possible consequences of this shift towards machine-manufactured art.
"""
Sam Harris says "It is difficult to expect mammal apes made of dirt and water to form a global functioning civilization." Can you elaborate on what he actually means with examples?
Sam Harris is a philosopher and author who has written extensively on the subject of human nature and the limitations of our species. In the quote you mentioned, he is pointing out the fact that humans are, at our core, animals that are made up of the same basic elements as other mammals. We are not fundamentally different from other apes, and we share many of the same physical and psychological traits.
Harris's point is that, because of our inherent nature as animals, it is unrealistic to expect that we can create and maintain a global civilization that functions perfectly and without conflict. Our brains and bodies are not designed for this level of complexity and coordination, and we are prone to making mistakes and engaging in behaviors that can undermine the stability of our society.
For example, Harris might point to our tendency towards aggression and violence as a fundamental limitation on our ability to create and maintain a global civilization. Throughout history, humans have engaged in wars, genocides, and other forms of violence against each other, and it is unlikely that this tendency will disappear simply because we have created a global civilization.
Similarly, Harris might point to our innate selfishness and short-sightedness as a hindrance to global cooperation and harmony. We are wired to prioritize our own interests and well-being above those of others, and this can lead to conflicts and divisions within society.
Overall, Harris's argument is that we should not take the existence of a global civilization for granted, and that we need to be realistic about the limitations and challenges that we face as a species. We need to work together and find ways to overcome our inherent flaws and weaknesses in order to build a better and more sustainable future
I think we’re very close to the point where a lot of soft ware engineers will be unnecessary.
Within a decade, assuming progress continues this way, it should be possible to generate usable code from these tools which performs fairly complex tasks. One person could generate a prompted CLI from a spec in very little time for example.
This wouldn’t be an arduous task at the moment, but given the current contextual capacity of this AI, I suspect in a decade it will be able to fully comprehend something at the scale of a basic SaaS application.
I feel like we’re approaching a revolution. I suspect I will keep my job for a while yet, and once less skilled people are made obsolete I might hold on for a while longer. Without a doubt, I will be worth far less soon and I will do a lot of my work using AI.
All kinds of digital tasks will gradually be usurped by AI. It’s surreal. At first we won’t be able to compete with the quantity of acceptable output. Then we won’t be able to compete on quality of output, either.
These systems will absolutely begin teaching each other. Well, they already do! But they will become better at it, and we will become generally inferior in most digital tasks.
As digital to physical fabrication improves, even things like product design and electrical engineering will be taken over. Spec some kind of a circuit, have the AI design the PCB and fuzz test it in a simulation to ensure it’s resilient and sensible, send the PCB to a mostly-automated fabrication process, pick and place, etc…
Ugh. Weird times. Perhaps we all need to learn to leverage AI or become irrelevant.
