Right, its answer would be a distillation of what humans have written on the topic of how to save us.

what humans have written

a highly curated selection that panders to the views of the AI’s sponsors

We are not yet at the point LLM are so dependent on advertising and “partnerships” that they are totally biased in favor of specific brands… not yet…

Take a time to anticipate how the actual state will soon be regreted…

Im just hoping that the LLMs that are trained to push views that are at odds with reality struggle with basic reasoning, making them inferior models to LLMs trained on a more diverse worldview. I hope.

My guess is we will see some less convenient models, that gives better result but a “weird” way ; and far more very convenient models, easy to use, but that generate advertisings as a result (maybe even with promo codes!)…

Remember how internet search have evolved, how youtube has became, how everything went when finance guys decided it was time for harvest…

Now look at this new field, see how they grow it… what are the odds their plan is to harvest it at some point?

I think the idea that “better training = better LLM’s” is AI industry marketing hype. It’s a pretty shoddy technology on a basic level. There are applications in computer science of LLM tech, but this chatbot shit has got to stop.

Panders to the pro-Trump views of tech billionaires? Strangely counterintuitive.

Thanks for proving my point :)

I’m not sure if there is some subtext being lost, but if your point is that we should trust AI with how to ‘save us’, then why aren’t you following it right now? It’s perfectly happy to offer an answer and it will even sound very convincing. But there is no reason to think it actually has the correct answer, or even knows what the problem is.

No, my point is that even if the AI was 100% correct and gave humanity the best advice to solve all of our problems, we still wouldn’t follow it. Because we don’t want to. We live in a society that’s broken on purpose, and a lot of people want to keep it that way, and have convinced a great many people to support things against humanity’s own interest.

If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.

People seek for god & other higher powers for much less reasonable logic than “a machine that is always correct no matter what”.

The reality is AI as it’s known today (generative stochastic models) can not ever reach “100% correct”, by definition of being a generative stochastic model. So you’re essentially discussing a fantasy computer that we are not close to every having IRL -> It’s not relevant.

If an AI was provably 100% correct then I guarantee you people would listen to it.

Intelligent people will believe the most obvious nonsense sometimes; engineers are represented among young-Earth creationists for example.

Disagree. The AI will say things like taxing the rich more or preserve nature etc. Society won’t listen to that, or more precisely won’t follow this advice, because the deciders do not like this idea.

Yeah and it’s not 100% correct. It makes mistakes and says incorrect things all the time - thus it shouldn’t be used to govern even if it happens to agree with you on some issues.

“The AI says the thing I like on the handful of buzzword issues I tested. Let’s hand it the keys to the entire world and let stuff get nutty”

Some people will even argue with regular number calculators.

Far apart from anything else it would just be regurgitating what somebody had already previously said and was previously ignored. Although I suppose maybe would have more weight coming from the “almighty AI”?