you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 64 points 3 months ago (28 children)

Long ago I learned in an economics class that business is all about exploitation of underprivileged populations. From indigenous people to slaves to poor citizens to “third-world” countries.

Corporations are running out of people to exploit globally, so the idea of infinite artificial labor is the holy grail of cost optimization.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Most of the shit going on right now can be explained by fatcats in the West, having run out of Economic growth to capture as the West's growth rate pretty much collapsed (quite possible due to the very actions those fatcats during the Neoliberal era, were amongst other things Social Mobility collapsed), have increasingly started pillaging the wealth and productive capacity of the rest of society, or in other words, exploiting everybody else.

    It's a vicious cycle were the tightening of the screws on everybody else leads to lower productivity and higher discontent which in turn leads to further tightening of the screws on everybody else in order for the elites to keep on getting wealthier at the same rate.

    AI was supposed to be a way for the fatcats to be able to extract even more wealth from the rest whist having less exposure to all those pesky natural human and societal responses to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    For the elites to get wealthier at the same rate

    Its a problem, don't get me wrong, but the real fuck up was they decided they decided they needed gains on the wealth increase rate also. It wasn't enough to just "make money", they HAVE to constantly make MORE making money every turn.

    Making 10% profits (or whateber) ever quarter was no longer good enough, they needed to increase profits every quarter too, 10%, 11%, 13%, the line going up, must also go up at a going up rate.

    They just accelerated it and fucked everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (24 children)

    Nah. I haven't seen a convincing argument that gen AI is going to coalesce from this shit show.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    My point is, I don't believe the current AI tech is going to get to the point where it's as useful as humans.

    We have long since reached the point where diminishing returns make significant improvements or advancement unfeasible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    That's not true. Mythos annihilated everyone's benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They're solving equations that people haven't solved, and they weren't meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn't trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau'd there for a minute but it's back to becoming more real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This is the same old hype really.

    Yes, there are things which todays generation of AI is good at, including medical research.

    That's not an indicator of general intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    You are really missing a lot of context here. None of this is true in the way you seem to think it is.

    You are mixing up marketing hype with reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?

    Or you are using them to solve problems you don't know how to solve?

    The things you're saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.

    Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I'm working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I'm pretty on top of the current state of the art here.

    The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn't trained to do that, in the slightest.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

    https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03

    What hype am I falling for?

    A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.

    And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal%27s+Wager%3A%2C36589923.++PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.++DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.

    They banned them not long after.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    It gets at the “how” without explaining the “why,” he adds. “One can check out that it’s correct, but it would be nice to be able to tell a story.”

    A.I. could help prove conjectures, but at this point, the models aren’t able to provide reliable, step-by-step instructions for solving them, reports Fortune’s Eva Roytburg. Humans can fill more than 100 pages documenting just one proof.

    Blumberg describes A.I.’s role with an analogy: “Suppose that Moses came down from the mountain with tablets, and on the tablet was written, ‘Cancer can be cured.’ Would you care? You don’t just want the answer to the question. You want to learn something from the answer,”

    Does this sound like AGI?

    Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What does novel mean to you? I'm honestly asking. And what is your benchmark, I am honestly asking. And again, I have not asserted AGI is here, but if the level is "working with a genius" I do think we're there, although I do think the genius is senile, like I said to begin with. So yeah, that sort of sounds like someone who could solve an equation no one ever has before, but would have trouble explaining it. Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved. My guy!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I have not asserted AGI is here

    This you?

    maybe don't adamantly assert it's not here when even most experts aren't willing to do that

    Also the article referenced saying they couldn't explain equations was written before that equation was solved

    Are you saying the link you provided is invalid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    AGI you mean? IDK It's arguably here. They're senile, though. Working with a senile genius is the best way I can put it, I think. Is it "people?" IDK fuck if I know. How could we ever really know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    IDK It's arguably here.

    That "IDK" is doing some heavy lifting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    arguably, too? so maybe it's actually like, a reasonable statement? and not the assertion y'all are pretending it is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    M not trying to be super rude here but the truth is, It's arguable if you argue with people who don't know any better. So in that sense, sure.

    When it comes to people that take these things seriously, it's not a really a very hot topic. We're clearly nowhere near AGI.

    Really good LLM != AGI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I don't really know what AGI means, I guess. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human, we're way, way past that. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as experts in all areas, we're not there, but we're not that far off. When connected to the internet? It's basically there.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/

    They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to. They ARE capable of novel concepts, to whatever degree. No offense but y'all seem like your knowledge is like three years old.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to.

    If you actually read instead of continuing to spam bullshit you would know this isn't true.

    You say "haven't been able to". This is fucking false my dude. At best it's solved problems humans haven't been bothered to solve yet. The solutions already existed and it assembled them into a proof.

    I don't really know what AGI means

    You don't know what any of this means dawg. You are literally just saying shit that you heard other people say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • OK bro. I guess you can solve 130 year old equations? Or maybe this is a weird way of measuring intelligence anyways and I was just demonstrating that they're capable of executing novel concepts, which they clearly are if they're solving things no one has solved before. Like do you not get how that is the important part? Not that humans can't solve it, it's that we HAVEN'T. The AI, on it's own, managed to solve a novel problem. We did not teach it to solve that problem. We taught it HOW to solve that problem, and then it did. And I was just using math because people say that it's bad at math when it no longer is. It's good at reasoning, it can come up with novel concepts. IDK. This feels like, "AI is whatever isn't."

    I'm honestly asking you what your benchmark would be, because I'm sitting here saying maybe and IDK and I wonder and you're here stating things very rigidly, but somehow I'm the one being accused of having ideological blinders? Mate I asked you what they were bad at now and you just ranted instead. But I'm the unreasonable one unwilling to listen. Okay. Have a nice night, homie.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human

    Well my calculator can solve a random nine digit number to the power of another random nine digit number faster than any human can, so I guess calculators have been AGI for decades!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)