Humans have been doing this for years even before the advent of the internet as we know it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking]. Maybe not at a larger and automated scale allowed by AI, but this is not superhuman intelligence... this is speed super intelligence.
My interpretation is that this is just another media campaign to say "oh look how powerful our model is".
> My interpretation is that this is just another media campaign to say "oh look how powerful our model is".
When the stakes are "humankind ceases to exist," I'd argue it's very reasonable to over-update towards "LLMs are closer to AGI than we thought, and alignment efforts are complete failures."
Are those things true? Dunno.
Will we be safer as a species if we act like they are? I think so.
I agree with knowing what's happening! But taking things at face value from tech companies, especially when they are at an early stage and maximizing for attention just doesn't feel right to me.
At the end of the day, bad things will happen and there's little that can be done about it. Just look around and see how things just take the path of their own whether it's violent or peaceful.
I'm not advocating for it to really show it's dangerous. I do not want yet another harmful weapon to exist. But, I think we knew what we were walking towards in the first place. So, acting surprised and then being up in arms about it feels counterproductive.
Do you really want there not be a powerful AI that doesn't turn harmful? Don't contribute to it, don't buy into it, don't use it. We might miss on the positives, but also miss on the negative aspects of it.
> But, I think we knew what we were walking towards in the first place. So, acting surprised and then being up in arms about it feels counterproductive.
A lot of us thought we didn't know what the genAI researchers were walking towards, and really wished they would stop doing it.
Alas.
> Do you really want there not be a powerful AI that doesn't turn harmful?
Yes, I would much prefer humankind keep trying to work things out on its own rather than trying to apotheose a text-prediction system.
If someone manages a successful summoning at all, I think the odds of a demogorgon are much, much higher than anything that cares about us.
Unlike Sam Bankman-Fried, I would absolutely never pick up a magic coin that has "wipe out human race" on one side, or even a d20 that has it on one face.
I would really hope to persuade anyone considering it to abandon it for more worthwhile pursuits, too.
> Don't contribute to it, don't buy into it, don't use it. We might miss on the positives, but also miss on the negative aspects of it.
I'm trying to avoid it as much as I can for that exact reason. My employers have made it difficult by requiring all developers to use LLM code generation, however. :(
Partially agreed. There are also just evil people that are not billionaire CEOs, and I am not sure if ALL billionaire CEOs are bad — I don't really pay too much attention to them.
There are evil people in general. And, it may be solvable if we focus on humans, the environment they grow up in, the information they consume, their psychological development, education, fitness, social environments, etc...
But, we keep focusing on the wrong thing thinking that a robot or an LLM will solve these problems for us as a society. I honetly don't thinks so...
I mostly meant humans in general. Not only CEOs. But... yes... maybe if the psychological development was better, Elon would not have been bullied, and perhaps would have been a better human.
I’d been a user of Obsidian, Notion, ClickUp and tried a myriad of other tools until I realized that Apple Notes and Reminders did the job just fine and worked perfectly across devices. Opening obsidian in my phone never felt natural, and most of the time I just want to write a quick note or add a quick task which didn’t feel as intuitive on my phone using third party apps. Also, the voice recording and transcription options in Notes are the best one I’ve used so far.
Notes can be organized in folders just like in obsidian and Reminders are clean and simple to use. No infinite options to customize, no moving blocks and no infinite properties. Simplicity feels good —- for me —- when it comes to these kind of tools.
These also work great with Codex and Claude Code, and with the hopes of Apple getting their act together with an AI integration, I think it might be the better option to manage one’s writing and tasks.
—-
I see some Apple haters’ cortisol levels rising on this comment. Please, this is not me saying that Apple is better. I’m just saying that it’s a solution I’ve found to work for me, and it may work for others too. Just like your super customized Obsidian vault in your cute Linux machine works for you and others.
Your comment resonates, but one issue with Apple Notes is that functionality is very limited on Windows and Linux. Apple doesn't expose any APIs for Notes so it cannot be integrated with ChatGPT/Codex/Claud. At best there are community plugins which scan the local DB running on a Mac. This would not work on iPhone.
Functionality is great across Apple devices. I think they are really adamant about their lack of interest in making their platforms open to other OSs.
You're right on there not being an API, but...
Both Notes and Reminders have a full AppleScript / JXA interface that Apple has maintained for years. Any LLM with shell access can read notes, create folders, add reminders, mark them complete, etc... + iCloud syncs everything out to iPhone/iPad/Watch/Vison/whatever-comes-next automatically.
Thanks! I'll take another look and see if I can live with the limitations. One recommendation I got from this submission is Anytype, so I'm also scoping that now. I feel like I've test-driven a hundred apps over the decades :-/
I wonder if anyone has thoughts on the future of “content”? I ask this because of the general adoption of LLMs for information seeking.
On one side, I think that those who manage to generate a trusted audience can benefit from this as LLMs generate generic content.
On the other side, people could get so used to generic content — like Tik-Toks — that it will only be a handful of people coming to those generating thoughtful content.
In a way, the YouTube channels I follow are like cable: they produce content of different genres and topics on a regular basis and serve it to me. There's another way to use YouTube, though: you can search for a video and find what you want exactly.
The way I use video is unlikely to be completely taken over by AI. Sure, producers might use some AI along the way, but people will continue valuing genuine programming, be it educational, comedy, news etc.
But I expect the second kind of content, the one you search for, to be mostly consumed by AI video and AI summaries as time goes on.
That's a good view point. Perhaps they're not being alarmists or trying to scare people, but being honest about the capabilities.
Perhaps it can be better articulated and framed in a way that's well received. But, maybe that would be over-promising or not being honest about the future.
What you mentioned is not a technocracy. Technocracy is when all decisions are made by real specialists in the field, based on scientific methods (simply speaking). What you mentioned is a plutocracy, a form of oligarchy in which decisions are made by people of great wealth.
I couldn’t just ignore this because, in my view, technocracy (as I’ve described it) still has some merit - for instance, appointing only genuine economists to head a hypothetical Ministry of Economy makes some sense - whereas oligarchy and plutocracy have nothing good to offer. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
I think most AI execs I'm familiar with would, if they were the god-monarch of humanity, recruit real specialists applying scientific methods to make most decisions. They seem like the kind of people who would understand that the Ministry of Economy is doing valuable things which shouldn't be compromised for personal expediency. Does that really make it any better?
In that case, we're not talking about an oligarchy or a technocracy either. What you have described is an autocracy - a rule by one. When there's some kind of "god-monarch", the people heading the Ministry of Economy will be controlled by this "god-monarch" and it's unclear if this can be called technocracy or not (at least it is unclear to me; maybe I'm stupid, who knows).
> Does that really make it any better?
Honestly? If you're asking about "would it be any better than now" - I'm not really sure, because I'm not in power to access the actions of the people who hold the positions equivalent to the head of Ministry of Economy - the economy is not my field, I'm not a specialist here. I would only point to the example I'm familiar with (and you're probably not; I'm sorry, I just couldn't think about something like this that I can verify) - in Ukraine, there's a "Ministry of Digital Transformation". This ministry was headed by a Mykhailo Fedorov, whose primary and as far as I know, he studied at the "Faculty of Sociology and Management". Well, that’s not the main point, as he’s studied elsewhere too. The problem lies elsewhere. His decisions have been criticized on more than one occasion by genuine experts - for example, the project known as "Diya", or "the state in a smartphone"; in short, it’s something like access to documents and various government services all in one app. It’s a long story… In short, as a result, there were (presumably) data leaks, and the service crashed more than once or twice due to its flawed security, and all sorts of problems were found with it - you name it, it had it. It's such a shame, to be honest... You can't just go and play with things like that. And now that person is serving as a... head of Ministry of Defence. Hell. To add insult to the injury, guess who is now taking his place at a Ministry of Digital Transformation? Oleksandr Bornyakov, who, as far as I know, holds a degree in marketing. Marketing. ...Nice. Well maybe I don't know something, who knows, who knows... but the decisions, or, rather, their consequences seem to be... let's settle with "terrible".
I'm pretty sure you can recall some similar examples yourself. My point is that although the scenario you described is not as good - because, I guess, no one really wants "god-monarch" controlling (although not making directly) all of the decisions. But if our hypothetical Ministry of the Economy were run by genuine experts who, moreover, work for the good of society - or at least the state as a whole - rather than just lining their own pockets, well, that sounds better than an idiocracy. That was my point.
Technocracy is a myth thanks to Goodhart's Law. Whomever sets the measures just becomes the new dictator as they will continue insist on whatever doctrinal point until they retain power. Technocracy would just end being the same old 'push delusions to remain in power' government as fascism and theocracy.
"Complete" technocracy - yes, although in real life I can’t recall any states that have actually implemented it. But I didn’t say that technocracy is the solution to all our problems. I merely said the following, and I quote: "still has some merit". In other words, there is at least something good about it; there's some elements that could be adopted. Or, in your view, would it be better if the state were run by idiots who don’t even understand what, in theory, is their job?
>Private equity relies on a basic technique known as the leveraged buyout, which works like this: you, a dealmaker, buy a company using just a small portion of your own money. You borrow the rest, and transfer all this debt on to the company you just bought. In effect, the company goes into debt in order to pay for itself. If it all goes well, you sell the company for a profit and you reap the rewards. If not, it is the company, not you, that is on the hook for this debt.
——
Not how I've seen this work. These often require a personal guarantee, in some cases the homes of whoever is applying for the loan. So, whoever wrote this article has no idea of the real acquisition process.
What you're describing is accurate when an individual or partnership buys a small business. Regular bank loans usually require additional security guarantees beyond just the business assets. But large PE firms have access to other sources of financing beyond traditional loans.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be happy to spend most of my time with my loved ones, talking, having fun, and investing my time in creative endeavours, but that’s just seems extremely unlikely. It feels more like we’ll be surrounded by constant wars, full of resentment and anxiety doomscrolling the live coverage of the destruction of what it means to be human.
That’s not being an AI doomer. That’s reality. Just open your goddamn eyes.
My interpretation is that this is just another media campaign to say "oh look how powerful our model is".