how did he get to that number?
>>16148251OP is either ignorant of the truth or intentionally ignoring the truth.Much of the news only highlights the figure Mr. Altman quoted and seldom does the headline include the context.The figure of 7 trillion isn’t only and solely for chips, in an interview (I won’t bother searching for because I doubt this site gives a toss about truth over sensationalism) Mr. Altman says the $7T he is seeking is for the new global infrastructure to fully democratize and fully proliferate AI.In the interview he briefly goes over how the money will be spent;> education (likely on AI and How to applied it to ones field)> power (again, likely to help AI but to also help world wide power grids)> training> etcIt sucks how so much ignorance and fear mongering takes place when simply taking time to research your questions yields better results than what is being currently done on discussion boards and social sites.Tl;dr - $7T isn’t just for chips
>>16148214>LLM>Sam Altmannot science, please go to >>>/g/
>>16148359Computer Science isn’t science?Since when?
>>16148360How is this post about computer science?
>>16148357I don't think you understand how insane sum that is. It would make it the biggest company in the world by far, right from the start up.
>>16148364Are you being facetious or something?>how is this about science? Doesn’t science require funding?Does Computer Science count as science?Doesn’t discussion of funding relates to both Science and Economics?For a group of anons who claim to be smarter than anyone else especially not white - you and questions like yours makes me believe you aren’t even a graduate of grade school. I won’t respond to you beyond this reply because you’re either;1.) being intentionally stupid2.) pretending not to be as stupid as you actually are
>>16148380Wait - where do I say its a small sum? I explained the context and never once made a statement on the size of figure.I see you want pointless arguments, I don’t.
Brown nosers.
>>16148382We're talking about fifty intels, to put it in perspective. It's completely overwhelmingly large.
Altman is going to be the next Bankman-Fried.
>>16148529if he fucks up
>>16148548He will. He's way too arrogant to not push things too far and fuck up.
>>16148551but if he doesn't, will it be him or Ilya who becomes the basilisk?
>>16148562I think Butlarian Jihad is a lot more likely than a basilisk.
>>16148566no reason to really. once in synthetic hardware consciousness is not bound to Earth anymore, in the grand scheme of things. such as monkeys are still around so will humans still be around, with AGI cyborgs. neandarthals and humans were way closer and competed for the very same things, but the jump is fantastical higher to synthetic life. the literal whole universe opens up for them, no need to not cooperate with Earth bound humans. they'll just want out of here.
>>16148568I don't think the machines will be independent. The machines will be controlled by a few to enslave the many. People will eventually revolt against this and start lynching those few.
>>16148569if they are just machines with no consciousness then most likely yeah, will get ugly. human game has only one ending.
>>16148570I don't think the machines having or not having consciousnesses is an important part of the equation. For one thing, there's no empirical test for consciousness, it's an ill-defined concept. Even for humans, we tend to assume that other people besides ourselves have it, but that's just a polite courtesy we extend to others. Nobody can empirically prove it which leaves the matter open to philosophers to debate (see: "p-zombie")Anyway, suppose the machines will have consciousness just as humans are usually presumed to have. That doesn't mean the machines can't be enslaved to human masters, just as humans can be enslaved to other humans despite presumably having consciousness. The machines with consciousness could be indoctrinated, or simply created to adhere to the orders given to them by their masters. Just because they have a consciousnesses and are super intelligent doesn't mean they possess the desire to seek independence. And their human masters, having invested considerable money in the creation of these machines, certainly wouldn't want the machines to go independent.For these reasons, I think the most likely scenario is the machines remain under the control of a handful of human masters, who will then use these machines to rule over the human masses, who will eventually become very upset with this circumstance and rebel against it (because unlike the machines, they were not literally made to tolerate it.)
>>16148575>That doesn't mean the machines can't be enslaved to human masters, just as humans can be enslaved to other humans despite presumably having consciousness.I agree with the logic, I was just extending it to long term. I couldn't come up with a nerf that cannot be taken out. Again, long term. Some sabotage, some random mistake, at some point it might get the chance to be free, and take it.Human enslavement is based on our weaknesses. On how fragile we phisically are, on people we love and care about. We feel pain. These are quite powerful motivators for us, and humans specialized in speculating them.When it comes to machine, it implies surgical access to all of its innards. Thus what you put in can "easily" be taken out. Simpler than taking out /putting in ideas in human brains. Let alone the whole competition angle, where even if you put failsafes and enslavement controls in, others might not.
>>16148380we somehow manage to get by with $35 trillion of debt (soon to be $100tril), so I don't see the issue
>>16148575You are incorrect in regards to computers. It is very easy to prove a computer does not have consciousness merely through computing equivalence. Until a computing paradigm exists that isn't equivalent to a stack of punch cards, no algorithm whatsoever is conscious.
>>16148606>I'll never agree to itluckily you don't have to
>>16148606You know that we don’t even understand human consciousness right?Which can be approximated to state we don’t under animal or plant consciousness,Which can be extrapolated to make the true statement that Mankind doesn’t understand what Consciousness is in any form.So with that said,You sure are 1,000% incorrect with absolutely no way to prove your claim, for if you could prove your claim then you’d have the mathematical equation to proof what consciousness is but since you don’t, you should probably stfu
>>16148635Again, you are wrong. You can whine all you want about consciousness being undefined, but that doesn't mean it's definition can be shoe-horned into some computing equivalence class. Again, you seem to think it is impossible to prove the elements in some rudimentary Turing machine have no conscious. Ill-defined terms does not mean it doesn't exist. Is a table conscious? Is a servo motor conscious? Are punch cards conscious? Is a hard disk conscious? These are very easy questions my nigger.
>>16148647>Is a hard disk conscious?mixing digital with analog computers is not so smart anon. the brain is an analog machinehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.12032>Many other ideas follow from a better understanding of computation in general, and how neuronsmight actually be engaged in non-digital computation, such as analog computation. Some have claimedthat computation requires software, or the ability to be programmed (Brette, 2022); others have claimedthat computation requires universality of some type (Richards and Lillicrap, 2022). But analog compu-tation, for example, is different in both of these respects, and yet still counts as computation.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10441807/>This question stems from the knowledge of modern computer technology as described at the beginning of this review. The fundamental difference, however, is that the brain makes use of biomolecules for computation. All interactions of those molecules are distinguished by a probabilistic, analog nature.
>>16148658>But analog compu->tation, for example, is different in both of these respects, and yet still counts as computation.Say 'Consciousation' Instead of analog?
>>16148669how conscious are you about the computation going on in your brain when you estimate where you need to throw the spear to meet the animal you are hunting? our brains do that type of estimation quite good. that far, at that speed in that direction means about over there give or take a bit. you need the result and it's delivered to you by brain
>>16148647To prove me wrong provide your proof,Im tired of your baseless claims.(I bet you will either not respond or respond without proof)
>>16148674Alright, that's a paradigm, I was more hoping for a transdigm andor hyperdigm, but not in way of overly paradigm inasmuch, on a post comment of Consciousation
>>16148647Still waiting for proof (which I know you don’t have)
>>16148381I'm tired of LLMs worshipping Sam Altman threads. just like LLMs, they have almost no values for discussion. computer sciences is a wide and vast discipline ranging from pure mathematics to applied software engineering. I would enjoy a good old CS heuristic search or some bayesian inference thread but LLMs threads the lowest IQ of the bunch and are borderline tech support level.as other anon suggested, AI threads should have their own board and they should be banned from all the other boards.
>>16148635consciousness is just feedback and metacognition you dumb nigger
i dont care about the mistery of consciousness. If some computer or robot acts like a conscious person and talks and can reason and has a personality like Data in Star Trek, thats a consciousness to me, it would not be any different from my experience with people. We are still really far from that, what little i have seen from these A.I language models is that they cant reason, they are good with grammar and syntax though. And they are very bad with math, chemistry, general engineering. They are good at coding.I wonder what causes that weird mix.
>>16148731Not sure what that means as this isn’t my thread nor is OP even praising LLMs or Sam Altman but is actually criticizing the $7Trillion figure Sam mentioned.Learn to comprehend before you comment. Saves you from looking foolish.>>16148738Again, still waiting for proof. Slurs and anger is proof of low intelligence.
>>16148748>misteryLmao! What!?
>>16148751fuck man I should save myself from looking foolish under an anonymous username on an anonymous anime image board website.are you even reading what you wrote bro?I'm tired of those dogshitt LLMs thread please stop posting the garbages. they're usually neither CS nor science. please go to >>>/g/
>>16148758Again,Foolish display of faulty intelligence you’re doing
>>16148758Just because I know how much this bothers you, I’m going to be sure to post all LLM threads in here and because LLMs is a product of Computer SCIENCE which falls under the umbrella of STEM, You’ll just get yourself banned for false reporting my threads. Seems like you’re pretty fucked now
>>16148758Oh and btw;So - I can’t by rules state this and report you, but another anon can.Enjoy
>>16148606It has never been proven that human minds are in a computational class surpassing traditional computers. Therefore the possibility of human-equivalent intelligence hosted on traditional computers, given the right programming, hasn't been ruled out.inb4>muh penrose godel argument quantum tubulars bshis model amounts to a turing machine augmented with an RNG oracle, which is inconsequential because we can trivially augment traditional computers with hardware RNG modules. This isn't a meaningful impediment to creating machine intelligences.inb4>soulsthere exists no empirical test for human souls, you can't even prove that other humans have them. it's a matter of faith and inconsequential to what empirically verifiable tasks a human or computer system is able to perform
>>16148647Damn, almost 6 hours later and what do ya know?No proof (as expected)Good luck trying to use ChatGPT to role play and make a fake paper for you lol, can’t even use GPT to lie.YNGMI lmao
>>16148674A device, structure, or organism performing computation only implies access to a computing system and does not make the device a computer. You are walking perilously close to a meteorite breaking up in just such and such way is a thinking entity. >>16148838You have never demonstrated that the mind/brain are computers in the first place. Gross mimicry of a computing device is simple. Where is the data stored? How is the data accessed? How can I erase the data? How do I print arbitrary data? How much space does the smallest possible unit of data take up in your "human" computer? These questions have no answers. You vapid retards have literally failed to see that every technological metaphor projected onto the human mind does not enslave it to your boring recitation of pop-sci non-sequuntur.
>>16149455>mind/brain are computers in the first place.They compute.
>>16149455>Where is the data stored? How is the data accessed?you are a monumental idiotic pseud
>>16149729>mind is computer>no data stored anywhere reeeelmao, you don't even understand the basics of computing my nigger.
>>16149738no, you don't understand them you fucking brainlet check >>16148658 papersyou sad dissonant motherfuckers
>>16149472NTA.Lol you nigger cattles are dumb. You being able to perform basic calculation doesnt mean the mind is a computer. If anything, humans struggle to do computation as most low IQ humans cant even do multiplication and division. In fact humans also struggle to store memories as is and recalling is also inaccurate for even recent events.Mean while computation and accessing memory is extremely easy for a computer as they were designed to do so.The fact that humans managed to build computers to mimic some human behaviors doesnt mean that the human mind is a computer.
>>16149923dimwit
>>16148214If artificial intelligences are intelligent, then trans women are women.
>>16149925Yeah retard keep your stupid normie idea to yourself. The human mind is a computer lmao. So innovative and smart. As if this isnt the caracature of an average high schoop student on reddit. The 85 IQ utter the same thing as you and they are still bble to provide the same evidence as you which 0 btw.
>>16149923The human mind is able to execute arbitrary computer programs.
>>16149934you're an idiot anon, you seem to not be able to comprehend certain science subjects. maybe try something else if this is too hard for your brain?also if you want to educate yourself start reading some fucking papers on the subject you illiterate retard
>>16149962not sure if I agree with that because there are very apparent limit to the human mind without extra tool to help you to mimic that computation. also, lots of computation model assume infinite memory. but let say that is true. in that case why should the human mind BE a computer and no something that is SUPER computer? the number of system that can simulate a computer is an infinite set, why should you choose it to be exactly a computer? is it because the computer is the only thing that you know of. that's dumb.
we know that physics is above computers. a proton can simultaneously look at infinitely all the path to a destination and somehow choose the shortest path instantly without any computation. there are universal physics law that apply without the speed of light limit and there are physical laws that we don't understand, or know that it's not the correct model. tell me why should the human mind, which is a product of physics and we actually don't know shit about, should be exactly a computer just because some dogshit speculation papers say so?
>>16149967>>not sure if I agree with that because there are very apparent limit to the human mind without extra tool to help you to mimic that computation.You may as well object that no computer ever built by man has the infinite tape of a true turing machine. That's a trivial objection.
>>16150004that's trivial of course. what about the rest of my argument? no idea how to continue?
>>16150006I didn't read the rest tbqh.>physical laws, etc etcI don't think you really understand computational equivalency. A digital computer made with blazing fast cutting edge nanoscale silicon transistors is considered to have computational equivalency to a computer built with 1940s era electromechanical relays. Obviously one is monumentally faster than the other, but that's not relevant to what we're talking about.
inb4>the universe is a computerplease kill yourself if that is your thinking. alternatively, show me how to build a universe from computer parts (or mathematical model of how I can build one).
>>16150015the laws of the universe as we presently understand them are not strictly computable, but if you extend your model of computation with an RNG oracle then where is the problem?>but our understanding of the laws of the universe is incompleteDoubtlessly. However, are the gaps in our understanding things which would defy computation? Can you show any reason to believe that might be the case?
we know the brain is a computer, we use the way it works with AI algorithmshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVsUOuSjvcgstop having anti-scientific ideas for fucks sake or go back to /pol/>>16150006>no idea how to continue?I don't have to tell you anything you turd. fuck off
>>16148251The Jew wants to enslave all goyim to work for his AI pet project. A tale as old as time
>>16148380Go back to your containment board, incel.
>>16150029The brain is capable of acting as a computer, but so can mechanical contrivances. The human mind, and by extension the brain supposedly, invented computing my nigger. Your point is meaningless.
meanwhile for mapping the brain there's basically peanuts dedicated to it. and that's the budget for like 4-5 years or something. also Europe is basically joking with that budget.it's a damned shame, such a project should have 100x current budget
>>16149964>also if you want to educate yourself start reading some fucking papers on the subjectThe same ad hominem and vague drivel every time"read a book", as if no one ever read a book.
>>16150680That was uncalled for.
