That being said, it strikes me as odd how empty this quadrant is. Why?
If you measure how much energy is invested into convincing an <input> element pointing to a machine of something, you're not measuring reasoning.
You're measuring how desperate a person is for communication (and, usually, how unstable they are).
No thanks? Also why do you even need a login?
but i wanted a way for people to publish their results to share w/ others
thanks for your feedback; if you publish your results, i'll look into it and try to figure out where things went wrong
that being said, i agree, the simulated personas could be better flagged
appreciate the feedback
Human choices can make limited changes, but dominant forces constrain the outcome.
that's why it's so important to show the sources used to derive these positions. like https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/why-my-pdoom-has-risen-dra...
if you find any particularly egregious results, they're likely due to not having good enough public sources for that user's viewpoints. def let me know and i'll try to improve them
thanks
edit: I would be curious to see how I'd changed over time as well. I would guess I was much more worried a year ago
Perhaps step outside this foolish dichotomy and consider whether LLMs are being vastly oversold as tools (no AI is not all LLMs and it's foolish to conflate the two). They can be useful in certain domains, they can be a useful crutch in helping humans think. Jumping from there to they will turn us all to grey goo or trigger a fucking renaissance is just unthinking acceptance of what you've been told by marketers and flimflam merchants like Altman and Musk selling you a dream.
The only doom LLMs could bring, which we're already seeing, is the enshittification of our shared spaces; infesting them with a simulacrum of thought and creativity, dumbing us all down till we think advertising copy is good writing and sloppy, shiny, happy images are the only kind of art we need.
It's not an open question, it's a very closed one which severely restricts the possible futures considered.
2. by expected bias, i meant that your answer didn't seem to actually look past the name at the actual content of the project or else you would've realized there are plenty of people modeled on here who share similar views as your own
3. i agree this type of knee-jerk reaction to the name & featured framing is reasonable. always tradeoffs when trying to get an idea to catch hold
Instead I tried to stick to my view on both current and future capabilities of AI, and how it's likely to progress in the coming years.
My result was closed to Hinton which isn't that reflective of my actual view (I'd put doom at around 99% at this point). But that's probably just because of how I answered.
I like it though! Especially how it clearly exposes how unreasonable Ed Zitron is, and perhaps myself =)
Say that I believe that AI is an ordinary technology (in the same way as the internet or transistors) that will be used to concentrate massive amounts of wealth and power into a small set of unaccountable oligarchs and their handmaidens while everyone else gets endless enshittification.
Pretty great outcome if you're one of the lucky few. Why wouldn't Musk or Andreesen think that's "bloom"? The exact same outcome OTOH seems pretty doom to me (a random dude)