Raw LLM Responses

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@41-Haiku of course it is not going to be substantiated when there hasn’t been any real effort towards solving the actual problems that exist because people are trying to obfuscate from those problems, as I mentioned earlier. This isn’t a climate change situation where there is a clear scientific consensus on the matter. There is no consensus as things stand in the AI community on an academic or scientific level on the long term implications of this technology and a finite amount of time and research grants. Edit: There’s a lot of money to be made by ignoring or obfuscating the real problems. So you won’t find much evidence to the contrary from a single study that may or may not be peer reviewed or commissioned by an AI company that stands to benefit from those problems not being resolved. Where’s all the progress we’ve made on bias? The theft of people’s artwork to make image models? AI psychosis? Oh, no progress has been made, but we’re gonna spend an hour talking to cranks about a future that cannot be falsified? Where’s all the progress we made on the existential threat while we continue to talk about this stupid existential nonsense that can be dismissed with a simple answer of “AI is currently at a point where it is equally likely to save humanity as it would be to destroy humanity if it achieved sentience, assuming it ever does.” That proposition is equally as likely with just as much evidence supporting that claim as anything Yudkowsky or his ilk would propose. Comparatively, that’s a non-problem relative to the real issues people are experiencing right now.