Absolutely reliably the best way to increase your chance of survival in a situation like this is to have good relations with your neighbours in a good community with high trust.
A large number of people working together will be much more likely to find solutions than a few isolated individuals. The isolated individuals may have disproportionately large survival resources, but probably not for long. If you are in the caring-is-sharing group you will have a much better chance than being in the me-me-bang-oh-shit group.
But there are a lot of people who fear community solidarity because it might lead to people asking questions about private jets and beach condos.
Post WW2 the USA (for a bunch of quite interesting reasons) excluded the British. But, of course, the British had acquired a lot of knowledge from the program and were able to develop their own bomb.
Can it connect with other agents, understand them, come to empathise with them and find a way to work with them better?
The answer is no to all of these, and there are other problems as well. Yes, this model is trained to use a domain specific language to reason and plan over puzzle problems, and so it's programmers have cracked arc-agi-3 and that's a great achievement, but there is an asymmetry here. The arc team are well funded but are charged with providing a target for the vast ocean of funding, compute and talent everywhere else.
Most importantly, arc-agi-3 and the other benchmarks are all verifiable. The model can check if it's succeeded or not. They are not A* of course, but long horizon problems where you have to overcome minima to get the solution are not alien to AI either.
Why does it need to empathise with something that doesn't have feelings in the first place? It clearly can learn from context. And experience? Again I don't see why it needs to feel anything.
I don't think it can learn from context, otherwise we could write Jane Eyre into it and it would be the novel? It's not learning as we conceive of it - it's another thing that we have labelled as "in context learning".
I have feelings, it needs to be able to empathise with me, or another driver, or a client...
1. It literally learns on data and gives outputs based on the context. I'm sure real time updating of weights will happen sooner than later.
2. What does intelligence have to do with feelings? It clearly doesn't learn like a human. Nor does it have to. Our world is filled with intelligence which behaves nothing like humans. Its a tool not another life form.
It can use new information when performing new tasks. It can store experience based on mistakes it made. It can store knowledge in several ways (context, files) and use it when needed.
There is a chance it will forget something, but the same can be said for humans.
And the reason why there are 10 clicks is that that is the number of decisions that is required to get people to hand over their money.
There will have been an A-B test with 9 clicks -> less sales, less revenue.
There will have been an A-B test with 11 clicks -> less sales, less revenue.
The people making these sites are not dumb. They are also sitting on thin margins nowadays, and mostly from the airlines and hotels rather than from the users.
That doesn't apply to a corporate travel portal. If you're on the portal, you're booking a business trip. You're not going to not book a trip because it takes 1 click too many.
That's approximated by the portals - the people building these go and look at Expedia for their flow and design ideas... so the information permeates across.
There's a herding effect with torrents where popular things are quick to get, unpopular things may be very difficult to get, because the majority of users delete files to save space.
I might host 3 or 4 models that I've downloaded recently, but I won't be hosting the 50 or so that I've tried in the last two years.
First it discounts the debt and financial load on the frontier labs to 0. The costs of developing this technology may well not be borne by those who reap the benefits. This is not like the Amazon distribution network.
Second it assumes that, like nuclear weapons, the technologies of frontier AI will not proliferate. I would argue that we have seen orders of magnitude reduction in compute requirements enabling sub linear improvement of scale driven AI in the last 24 months. Meanwhile 27bn param models do what trillion model parameters couldn't 12 mths ago. I think we're seeing a diversification of approach now, and it's not clear that the winners will be scale driven.
Third, and the most fatal, it assumes that AI will be the driver of power in the future geopolitical landscape. But frankly if I nuke you what will your clever machines do then?
This is not 1945 and this essay is essentially a note from a USA in the middle of an existential crisis channelling the 1950's.
A large number of people working together will be much more likely to find solutions than a few isolated individuals. The isolated individuals may have disproportionately large survival resources, but probably not for long. If you are in the caring-is-sharing group you will have a much better chance than being in the me-me-bang-oh-shit group.
But there are a lot of people who fear community solidarity because it might lead to people asking questions about private jets and beach condos.
reply