Come on!! You had to see this coming!Zuckerberg Announces Layoffs After Saying Coding Jobs Will Be Replaced by AI:
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced a private sector investment of up to $500 billion to fund infrastructure for artificial intelligence, aiming to outpace rival nations in the business-critical technology.
Trump said that ChatGPT's creator OpenAI, SoftBank (9984.T), opens new tab and Oracle (ORCL.N), opens new tab are planning a joint venture called Stargate, which he said will build data centers and create more than 100,000 jobs in the United States.
Come on!! You had to see this coming!
btw this is a project from last year that Trump has dusted off so he can look good on Day 1 with a big project announcement.
March 29 (Reuters) - Microsoft (MSFT.O), and OpenAI are working on plans for a data center project that could cost as much as $100 billion and include an artificial intelligence supercomputer called "Stargate" set to launch in 2028, The Information reported on Friday.
Seems to me AI is going to present "answers" to questions that are apparently genuine and correct but flawed. So, presented as satisfactory but not really trustworthy. I asked for a solution online (google search) to a problem a couple weeks ago and the AI generated answer may have worked but there was a far far simpler way of solving the problem. A human alerted me to this later in a reddit thread.Oh, it's beautiful. Staggeringly wrong, but beautiful.
That's what makes it so dangerous - it looks right unless you know what it's talking about. These things generally don't say things like "I don't know", they just always couch their answers with soft language like "But there may be exceptions" or "Based on my training data".Seems to me AI is going to present "answers" to questions that are apparently genuine and correct but flawed. So, presented as satisfactory but not really trustworthy. I asked for a solution online (google search) to a problem a couple weeks ago and the AI generated answer may have worked but there was a far far simpler way of solving the problem. A human alerted me to this later in a reddit thread.
It's pretty obvious that AI is already a big part of weather forecasting. I go to weather.com every day to see hour by hour temperature, wind speed and direction at my location (well, close to it). This is clearly computer generated based on data, much of it satellite generated, some by earth and ocean censors, plus modeling systems. This goes out about 48 hours. I can go to 10 day if I want.GenCast: Google’s DeepMind team released its latest weather prediction model this week, which outperforms a leading traditional weather prediction model across the vast majority of tests put before i
What to Know About Google's Breakthrough Weather Prediction Model
The latest forecast tool out of DeepMind shows how artificial intelligence could revolutionize the way we predict the weather.gizmodo.com
Yeah, it's one of the things I learned in school. How to sound smart when I'm really not. It's better to know what you're talking about.That's what makes it so dangerous - it looks right unless you know what it's talking about. These things generally don't say things like "I don't know", they just always couch their answers with soft language like "But there may be exceptions" or "Based on my training data".
I mean, most humans do that too, lol. I've said many incorrect things with absolute confidence and conviction.That's what makes it so dangerous - it looks right unless you know what it's talking about. These things generally don't say things like "I don't know", they just always couch their answers with soft language like "But there may be exceptions" or "Based on my training data".
I worry that a lot of people will think "It came from the computer so it must be right", without the nuance of source consideration. If my uncle says something about physics, I'll be skeptical, but if some astrophysics PhD says it, I'll probably just take it as true and move on. I don't know how well logical fallacy is being taught these days, I may just be worried about a bunch of nothing.I mean, most humans do that too, lol. I've said many incorrect things with absolute confidence and conviction.
It's right to be worried about it, moreso if important people are taking it as truth without investigating it as such.I worry that a lot of people will think "It came from the computer so it must be right", without the nuance of source consideration. If my uncle says something about physics, I'll be skeptical, but if some astrophysics PhD says it, I'll probably just take it as true and move on. I don't know how well logical fallacy is being taught these days, I may just be worried about a bunch of nothing.
I learned and have practiced quite a lot hedging my statements to allow for my being wrong. FWIW, which may not be a lot!I mean, most humans do that too, lol. I've said many incorrect things with absolute confidence and conviction.
I wouldn't take anything about physics as true anymore, even coming from "some astrophysics PhD."I worry that a lot of people will think "It came from the computer so it must be right", without the nuance of source consideration. If my uncle says something about physics, I'll be skeptical, but if some astrophysics PhD says it, I'll probably just take it as true and move on. I don't know how well logical fallacy is being taught these days, I may just be worried about a bunch of nothing.
This has been my main concern about AI since the beginning. Whoever controls the best AI will rule the planet. As we have seen lately the people controlling AI have little to no humanity.
I wouldn't take anything about physics as true anymore, even coming from "some astrophysics PhD."
Holy cow... theoretical physics has become something else...
Theoretical physics fascinated me at one time. My first major was physics. I fell out of love with it and graduated in mathematics. My cousin's husband was a professor of physics at Oxford and heavily into string theory (I asked him about it some 15 years ago, don't remember what we said). I...forums.anandtech.com
This grew out of my reading the Wikipedia page on String Theory, which is replete with information all of which appears to be contentious in various ways.
Agree and that last statement is pure wisdom attained only after years and years of living.Its entirely possible that we're fatally flawed to not be able to understand the universe, try as we might.
I didn't say that to be mean, but you're finding out that the more you know, you realize how much more you don't know.
Your use of the word "know" suggests you put some value to it. If we know nothing, then the idea of knowing is just illusory. I have never kidded myself or anyone by purporting to have the answers. However, I don't regret my seeking nature, it has not been in vain to say the least.I didn't say that to be mean, but you're finding out that the more you know, you realize how much more you don't know.
Astrophysics and theoretical physics are very different. Theoretical physics is necessarily fringe in many cases, and most of the theories will not pan out; that's the whole point.I wouldn't take anything about physics as true anymore, even coming from "some astrophysics PhD."
Holy cow... theoretical physics has become something else...
Theoretical physics fascinated me at one time. My first major was physics. I fell out of love with it and graduated in mathematics. My cousin's husband was a professor of physics at Oxford and heavily into string theory (I asked him about it some 15 years ago, don't remember what we said). I...forums.anandtech.com
This grew out of my reading the Wikipedia page on String Theory, which is replete with information all of which appears to be contentious in various ways.
Ever did what? You're talking down to me, which is egregious, stupid and uncalled for. I studied physics seriously, was exceptionally good at it. I got to a point where I lost interest, not because of my ignorance. I developed interest in other things. What do you know about me? Nothing, obviously.The only reason you ever did is pure ignorance of your ignorance.
So, you assume that whatever a PhD in astrophysics is true. No, that wasn't you, but I have to think that since physics is in chaos astrophysics can't be a settled realm at this point. Astrophysics uses the laws of physics. Since those are all in doubt, so is astrophysics.Astrophysics and theoretical physics are very different. Theoretical physics is necessarily fringe in many cases, and most of the theories will not pan out; that's the whole point.