only takes a few minutes && free & open source && private by default && powered by Jev
I think this is a really important question for everyone to be asking themselves, and my hope is that this lil project helps to move our conversations around AI futures in a more balanced, productive direction.
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, it strikes me as odd how empty this quadrant is. Why?
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
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).
Look at your AI nonsense.
What is this. This is shameful. I hope there was just alcohol involved in this.
This was well-thought-out feedback you were explicitly asking for by posting here. I've engaged with your stuff in good faith.
Show some respect, man.
___
Also, by reading the other comments and contemplating..
What I said breaks what you actually wanted to do with this.
It seems to me that you wanted other naive people to take their time and enter data so that you can then bring out some thought leading text or whatever, that is a digest of that.
Questioning the form inputs breaks that. So you reach for a Twitter dunk in the hopes that no one looks to closely.
Which leaves me wondering:
Didn't you make it? Your GitHub profile says ex big tech and all
Don't you have more than enough cash for you to not instantly throw away the veneer of civilty when some new bad-faith marketing game fails?
Or are you just in it for the game itself and the thrill?
Either way. Damn.
Just saying nothing at all would've been exceptionally more wise PR wise.
not anywhere close to my 50s, and this isn't "bad-faith" marketing game; everything i do is 100% free and open source and just genuinely trying to help advance convos around AI in a positive direction without caring about making money like most people
anyhow, sorry for the rude remark
that being said, i agree, the simulated personas could be better flagged
appreciate the feedback
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
Every creative industry will be inundated with tasteless slop, and eventually some military somewhere will give an LLM too much privilege over defense systems. That part almost came true the other day.
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)
i go into this more in this project: https://cultural-alignment.com/concepts/power-concentration
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 =)
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