Humans should not have to compete for resources hogged by tech.

Not that efficient since most of him is just water.

The problem isn't so much their reckless careless behavior, but that they can get so many people to go along and invest.

I am. The rich people will compost just like everybody else.

The problem was that things started breaking at scale under the gold standard. The great depression happened under the gold standard, and financial institutions had no ability to do anything to fix the mass hysteria.

Yes, the house as an investment vehicle rather than a house is a problem, but it's not because of fiat currency per se. The population density increasing under a capitalistic system pretty much guarantees that housing becomes a speculative asset regardless of the specifics of the currency system.

Meanwhile BTC has been wildly unpredictable and when it's at its most hyped, massively deflationary which is also a terrible thing.

But, a 4% success rate!

According to the article, this was his literal next sentence:

And not only that, it took the very widespread evolution of the 100 billion people that have ever lived and learned not to get eaten by predators and learned how to figure out science and whatever, to produce you.

Where's Alannis Morissette when you need her?

Aren't humans and biological creatures in general found to be extremely efficient with energy? Given the computing power in our brains the fact it runs on so little is amazing no?

a master class in what-about-ism

More like 40, but I get your point.

It's like he asked his chatbot to come up with this argument.

Mistaking the map for the territory. The argument isn't that bitcoin is bad because it's used to buy drugs, it's bad because the network would choke if it even had to handle the economic activity of a moderately sized town.

I really don't think he meant it that way. Think of it like this - if I want to generate some images, my GPU will run at 100% for few minutes. If I want to play cyberpunk, my GPU will run at 100% for hours.

Well maybe we need to compensate for the inefficiency by including all his CEO and Billionaire buddies as well.

Doesn't the human brain do what it does on like the same electricity as a lightbulb?

Fuck Sam Altman, fucking cunt

That's because capitalism is a mental illness, these people are all sick and need treatment

How the fuck does involuntary soften the language?

What kind of bulb are we talking here?

Don't forget about the hot air

In Altman’s case it’s a dimbulb.

His argument is his computer is more important than other people, and he's willing to deprive them of resources to death.

I think if he meant it that way he would have said that, instead of talking about the energy that humans use and particularly talking about food.

Yes, it's disingenuous for him to bring up all the time used for humans to evolve as well. If we're going to go that far, we also ought to include the energy/time used by the engineers who created ChatGPT, and all the energy used by plants/animals in the evolution leading to those engineers. Not to mention all the time/energy/training of all the people who created the training data over the past few centuries.

Frankly, at that point, any human artist is more "efficient" than AI - they're able to master their field in mere decades.

More of an inhalant type monarch, eh?

creating the "ai" in the first place also required the evolution of those 100 billion people. So by that argument, he was behind before he even started, and it's impossible to catch up

12 watts maybe. But there is no currents and flashes like internet bullshit images.

In what way does AI prevent people from socializing with one another?

You're asking how an AI that tutors you might displace the need for people who tutor you? Hm.

You know that people used to know their tailor? You could bring your son in, get him a suit for his birthday. "Hey, this is my boy, William. William, this is Richard, I've been coming to him for years. He does great work. How's the wife, Richard?" I have never spoken to the Amazon website like this. I don't think it can hear me.

Somebody actually did the math, and even accounting for all the energy that it takes for a human to stay alive a pair of decades, it's not even a hundredth of the energy needed to run the training of GPT-3. And GPT-4 took over fifty times that. Cf. fosstodon.org/@atoponce/116121…RE: fosstodon.org/users/atoponce/s…

Steelmanning is what wins arguments. For example if I were to say that your argument amounts to little more than lazy contrariness some percentage of us Lemmings would see that as uncharitable, regardless of whether they agreed with my position. I'm not suggesting updoots are important, just that discourse is.

That being said while education and socialization aren't inherently dependent on one another, certain subjects like debate, civics, and ethics should likely be taught in group settings (as well as more often). PhysEd as well.

But if harder sciences and math have the potential to be taught outside the sometimes stressful social hierarchies of traditional schools, it's worth at least exploring.

PS: Regarding your username, have you seen the excellent Philip Seymour Hoffman movie "Love Liza"?

Steelmanning is what wins arguments.

Actually, no, it's not. Steelmanning is a tactic.

I mean, as long as people believe in the truth, it's a tactic I'd hope they use.

The main reason that I'm not engaging with the paragraph-by-paragraph is that I just don't feel like taking 6 months to explain a systemic view of society. It is obvious to me that you view an AI education as no different than opening a textbook.

I don't know how you live, so let me tell you something. If you wanted to, you could: work from home (to be fair, I love doing that), get all your trinkets and toilet paper from Amazon, spend your off-time watching vtubers pretend they're uncomfortable with the word 'penis', order all of your food through UberEats, talk to people, if you do, exclusively through Discord and Reddit, ignore all phonecalls and have AI write your texts back instead, skip bathing entirely because what purpose does that even serve at this point, and spend the rest of your time being intellectually stimulated by gacha-game roulettes and call of duty lootboxes.

For a lot of people, school is the one time when they can't do this. They are forcibly dragged by their heels over gravel and concrete into a community with other people. This is a place they can look up and see other faces. They can stand in places where their obscene body odour is shameful enough that they may be bullied into bathing again. They could, perhaps, see another person struggling and offer to tutor them.

Yes, technically, you could educate from an AI, and separately, socialize with people elsewhere. Technically, and I'm not saying these are strictly equivalent, you could segregate your schools by color, but still offer your jobs equally to any applicant, whoever they may be.

The question I ask is, "but would they?"

The social ramifications of teaching people to be dependent on this technology, and this includes their social skills, their sense of community membership, where they feel like they get their friends from (the sycophantic chatgpt is much, much better at affirming your bad habits than any person will be), are so dangerous that I don't really want this technology anywhere. Certainly not in a classroom before anyone has even learned to be self-actualized.

I would rather imagine a world where teachers are paid well. Where more faculty can be hired. Where classroom sizes are systemically allowed to be smaller than they are. Where no-child-left-behind laws, which are destructive, are broken and shattered to pieces. Where students form study groups and support each other, something they should be doing their entire lives, instead of asking a T-1000 that pretends it can giggle.

This is a really basic one, probably not viable for the modern age: every time you need to ask a person a question is an opportunity to make a friend. If you are asking your questions of an AI, where are you making your friends? I'm not implying an answer, this is an open-ended question.

PS: No, but this summary is really fucking funny:

a man grieving his wife's suicide by huffing gasoline fumes and avoiding her suicide note

Wasn't technology developed to improve humanity's quality of life? Are we being compared with it and determined as inefficient now?

oof! apply water to the burn- oh wait we don't have any!