Chatgpt - Seriously good potential (or just some Internet fun)

Chagpt needs to develop a personality, anodyne replies like 'this is all nothing' are going to get boring for educated adults.


Training GPT-3, which is a single general-purpose AI program that can generate language and has many different uses, took 1.287 gigawatt hours, according to a research paper published in 2021, or about as much electricity as 120 US homes would consume in a year
Click to expand...

if one incarnation of chatgpt needs a 1/30 th of the energy to power the UK for one day, reproduction will be more expensive than humans
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
Chagpt needs to develop a personality, anodyne replies like 'this is all nothing' are going to get boring for educated adults.
Click to expand...
You can prime the AI to respond in a way that suits you or that will enhance the response you require

Here's an example of using chatgpt to generate prompts for mid journey


You just need to feed it the information so it can learn to respond in the way you want
 
jpaul said:
if one incarnation of chatgpt needs a 1/30 th of the energy to power the UK for one day, reproduction will be more expensive than humans
Click to expand...
as I’ve been watching all this AI and robot stuff develop I have grown to appreciate just how incredibly efficient the human brain is.

Edit: the human brains is about 12 watts of power
 
Last edited:
Seems very dramatic to me, quite the leap going from where we are now to wiping us all out from a practical point of view.

Much higher probability of societal collapse through mass job losses in a short space of time imo.
 
Finners said:
Seems very dramatic to me, quite the leap going from where we are now to wiping us all out from a practical point of view.

Much higher probability of societal collapse through mass job losses in a short space of time imo.
Click to expand...
I don’t get how mass job losses due to widespread automation doesn’t end up with companies just collapsing. if nobody has money because they’ve all been replaced by AI who is going to buy your overpriced electronics?
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
if one incarnation of chatgpt needs a 1/30 th of the energy to power the UK for one day, reproduction will be more expensive than humans
Click to expand...


In February, the UK was using 32GW of power averaged, however as there are 24 hours in the day, you take 32x24 = 785GWH per day, or 22TWH for FEB 2023

So its like 1/650 th

Chuk_Chuk said:
I don’t get how mass job losses due to widespread automation doesn’t end up with companies just collapsing. if nobody has money because they’ve all been replaced by AI who is going to buy your overpriced electronics?
Click to expand...

Yes if you need 10 people to do a job, now you need only 1, now 9 people can do something else.

Its restructuring.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Serious automation and AI is more than just restructuring, it's a seismic shift in productivity that'll need the right regulation and taxes around it, along with UBI.
Click to expand...

Our current production is not enough to sustain our current population. The measure for this is affordability.

We are a long way from UBI.

Basically you'd need to be able to support a family on the average salary, or median, whatever. And unemployment would need to be high, 30% or more.
 
platinum87 said:
Our current production is not enough to sustain our current population. The measure for this is affordability.

We are a long way from UBI.

Basically you'd need to be able to support a family on the average salary, or median, whatever. And unemployment would need to be high, 30% or more.
Click to expand...

Whats that got to do with your 'restructuring' point?

Unless i'm mistaking what you mean by restructuring. But i understood it to mean that new jobs will be created from the jobs lost. ie there is no net negative to employment.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Whats that got to do with your 'restructuring' point?

Unless i'm mistaking what you mean by restructuring. But i understood it to mean that new jobs will be created from the jobs lost. ie there is no net negative to employment.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, where unemployment is the amount of people who are unemployed but seeking employment.

You are jumping the gun far into the future by saying its more, for that to be valid it means people are not needed to work, if people are not needed, that means everything is cheap, affordable, etc etc

And we are nowhere near that, so that is what it has to do with it.
 
platinum87 said:
Yes exactly, where unemployment is the amount of people who are unemployed but seeking employment.

You are jumping the gun far into the future by saying its more, for that to be valid it means people are not needed to work, if people are not needed, that means everything is cheap, affordable, etc etc

And we are nowhere near that, so that is what it has to do with it.
Click to expand...

I still don't think you're being very clear.

We can agree that the end goal is that all humans basic needs are met, in that world of hyper efficiency and productivity, money does take a less important role.

But the path towards that is a massive dislocation in available jobs for humans, where goods still cost money. It's that crossover, it's not a restructuring of the jobs marketplace. Where a job lost is a job gained somewhere else. It's a continuous path of net negative jobs
 
Trusty said:
I still don't think you're being very clear.

We can agree that the end goal is that all humans basic needs are met, in that world of hyper efficiency and productivity, money does take a less important role.

But the path towards that is a massive dislocation in available jobs for humans, where goods still cost money. It's that crossover, it's not a restructuring of the jobs marketplace. Where a job lost is a job gained somewhere else. It's a continuous path of net negative jobs
Click to expand...
This resonated with me, on this topic:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom