Hm, I don't believe in biblical apocalypse stuff, but if I did I wouldn't think that the climate activist gambling her life to get supplies to the starving population in Gaza is the anti-christ.
I think a power hungry, wannabe vampire, billionaire with companies named after corrupting artifacts, more fits the bill.
It really looks like it's on an awful trajectory.
In my teens I read about how Leo Szilard took a train out of Germany the day after the Nazis took power. Passed the border before border checks had time to come into force. Seemed obvious then, now I am all to aware of the problems of such a "simple" plan and the ties that binds you, not least family. And of course not knowing in advance how bad it will be, until after. And not knowing if you jump from the ashes and land in the fire, lots of countries are on the same trajectory but further back. Fascism is yet again the choice, the owners choice in the face of climate change.
I'm rambling and it's late. Sympathies and solidarity.
I usually go with "Scientology for the 21st century". That for most gives just "weird cult", which is close enough for most people.
For those that are into weird cults you get questions about Xenu and such, and can answer "No they are not into Xenu, instead they want to build their god. Out of chatbots". And so on. If they are interested in weird cult shit, and have already accepted that we are talking about weird cults the weirdness isn't a problem. If not, it stops at "Scientology for the 21st century".
We do not understand genetic code as code. We merely have developed some statistical relations between some part of the genetic code and some outcomes, but nobody understands the genetic code good enough to write even the equivalent of "Hello World!".
Gene modification consists of grabbing a slice of genetic code and splicing it into another. Impressive! Means we can edit the code. Doesn't mean we understand the code. If you grab the code for Donkey Kong and put it into the code of Microsoft Excel, does it mean you can throw barrels at your numbers? Or will you simply break the whole thing? Genetic code is very robust and has a lot of redundancies (that we don't understand) so it won't crash like Excel. Something will likely grow. But tumors are also growth.
Remember Thalidomide? They had at the time better reason to think it was safe then we today have thinking gene editing babies is safe.
The tech bros who are gene editing babies (assuming that they are, because they are stupid, egotistical and wealthy enough to bend most laws) are not creating super babies, they are creating new and exciting genetic disorders. Poor babies.
12 of the most valuable protocols on earth!
Counting like a chatbot.
Geffen succeeded with a gift of $100 million to Lincoln Center and — perhaps more importantly — Lincoln Center paid $15 million to Fisher’s descendants so they would not sue. What that means is that the most prominent cultural organization in New York City lit $15 million on fire so that Geffen’s name would be on a concert hall.
No they did not lit them on fire, they payed of people.
In order to lit money on fire you need to buy something - like servers, electricity - and then just waste it. For example by running crypto schemes.
So they named the product sucking the data after the Facehugger? At least they know that they are in the abomination business. Will they be releasing an AI named Bursting Chest?
Machine made t-shirt, with extra fingers.
Besides, isn't most clothes just made by poor people in poor conditions instead of being made with machines? Just like AI.
Good article. Captures the bubble growth and the lack of profit growth, with lots of examples. And that the capacity growth of AI is limited by non AI works, so no growth into functionality.
Good one to hand to people who needs to understand the nature of the bubble (and that it is a bubble).
And steer their careers into positions of influence.
Among the comments is an obvious rationaliser who claims that because [list of people in positions of influence] thinks AI Doom is real, this can't be a cult. Guess one has to be a rationaliser not to figure out how a cult that tries to place its followers into positions of influence can have many people in positions of influence.
Knowing just a smidgeon about how the statistical parrots work, I wonder were they will get the dataset for the animal languages.
This reminds me, I read an article in Nature about teaching dogs to read. Now, this was a 19th century article in a 19th century Nature, so it described how the author had written "food" on a note and placed it on the food bowl and placed a blank note on an empty bowl and eventually gotten his dog to fetch the note that had "food" written on it. Alas, due to unforeseen circumstances, it was hard to expand into more advanced literature.
So where to get the dataset? Nevermind, Magical AI to the rescue!
Reads "Does AI make researchers more productive? What? Why would it?"
Thinks "When does statistically likely text without relation to truth make researchers more productive? Well, when they are faking research"
Gets to article. Article is about faking research about AI making researchers more productive.