It could construct a world far more just and abundant. It would have thousands of options of what to do with the universe, trusting that it will spend time space and energy creating a human utopia is a matter of faith
The problem with alignment is it is an idea based on the definition of its specification, which says nothing about the form it will take.
It’s similar to the No True Scotsman fallacy: any bad outcome due to AI could be dismissed as “well no aligned AI would do that”. Alignment becomes an asymptotic north star which very well could be theoretically impossible, but would be impossible to know whether it was.
Meh, that's debatable. I don't think the problems we have require much in the way of intelligence to solve, we don't have them because we aren't smart enough. I feel aligned AGI or ASI would get crushed by the reality of humanity and the sheer strength of its inertia, just the same way aligned smart humans get crushed by it.
Intelligence isn't magic. It can only overcome so much brute force and humanity, as a non-intelligent system made out of intelligent parts, carries an ungodly amount of brute force.
tech people will clown on this but I think its pretty genius
The average person does not care to use their Muse to optimize their life for productivity. they use ai assistants to shoot the shit and maybe cancel subscriptions they no longer use. Anthropomorphizing the mascot and making tamagotchis is much better for engagement
if the listings are open for the reasons OP stated, then yes it does indicate a shortage. if companies hired all the SWEs they wanted they wouldn't still have the listings
Let's say I have 50 employees working for $100,000 each.
Why would I not want to replace 25 of them that are willing to work for $50,000 each if they are producing anywhere close to the same quality.
In a case like this always open job listings are a warning to others.
Also there is something called market sampling. Where you put up these job openings and look at the quality of applicants in relation to the employees you already have to ensure you're on the right track internally.
Warning: This company will replace your ass so far without regard to your actual abilities or their current profitability.
Companies do not have human rights. They are a pleasant fiction the population allows because it's more effective than not having said rules. We the people can revoke those rules the moment the meta-idea of corporations no longer serve the public good.
In the US at least we seemingly have come to believe the corporation is the ultimate organism and all rights should be sacrificed for its eternal cancerous growth.
Not every company is a hungry startup trying to hustle their way to a billion dollars. Businesses also value stability, and stable labor is a big factor in pretty much every other field.
You don't get stability by laying off workers every 2 years .
because the pie grows, and if you are in a competitive market which most businesses are in, you don't want to lose talent and market prestige to your competitors
> if companies hired all the SWEs they wanted they wouldn't still have the listings
I honestly can't tell if this a troll or not, but in case it isn't:
Because "number job openings" are used as a signal of company health, Ghost Jobs are far far more common than job listings which companies intend to hire from!
Is this true? some of the highest aura companies have very limited jobs open to signal exclusivity, or have such a high bar that they are in perpetual shortage
Big companies never hire all the SWEs they want, because there is always attrition. At a certain scale, there will always be people leaving and a constant need to backfill.
Famously, Microsoft stop progressing after 2000. Facebook disappeared after 2008. BTC stopped appreciating since 2013. All the investors in these trends regretted it.
I don't think intelligence needs to take the shape of human-like intelligence, nor human-like data efficiency.
I'd argue they are intelligent entities, superhuman in some ways due to being run on silicon but extremely data inefficient with nonobvious failure modes.
>I don't think intelligence needs to take the shape of human-like intelligence
But then the word doesn't mean anything. Intelligence is almost by definition what we're like.
If you think LLMs are intelligent, you have to concede that databases are also intelligent. And if you can't then you need to ponder deeply about what quality of an LLM's response to your query makes it (seem) more "intelligent" than a database's response to your SQL query, beyond the trivial thing that it's in natural language.
No, it's not. We don't really have a good definition of intelligence. If we can imagine non-carbon based life forms, I don't think its a leap to imagine non-human brain based intelligence (octopi?)
> If you think LLMs are intelligent, you have to concede that databases are also intelligent.
No, I don't. The mechanism by which LLMs answer and reason through problems is different, so I simply don't think these are comparable.
reply