this goes so hard, i can't believe it's on a government building. need more of this energy nuclear reactors should have prometheus stealing fire from the atom datacenters should have an angel with a flaming sword holding back chaos

AI is detecting breast cancer before it can be found. THAT’S WHAT WE NEED. Not a fucking car that drives itself.

Humanity's smartest invention might also be its last. Superintelligent AI could be our dream come true – or our worst nightmare. Watch our latest video to find out what it could mean for the future of our species: kgs.link/superintelligence

There is no rational reason, other than greed, for Novo Nordisk to charge Americans nearly $1,000 a month for Ozempic when it costs less than $5 to manufacture it and can be purchased in Germany for just $59. Novo must substantially reduce the price of Ozempic in the US now.

As I watched this, I could almost feel the tide turning. I hope enough people see it to make it come true.

Artificial intelligence detects breast cancer 5 years before it develops #MedEd #MedTwitter #SCIENCE #technology #oncology #Cancer #Diagnosis

The New York Times's lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft seeks "destruction... of all GPT or other LLM models and training sets that incorporate Times Works"

10 years. 10,000+ posts. 100,000 follows. 100,000,000 impressions.

this guy is becoming public domain in 3 weeks btw

So the odds of getting a blood clot from the J&J vaccine are literally one in a million and they stopped administering it. Do you know the odds of getting blood clots from birth control? It's 1/1000. (This is considered very low odds.)

FINALLY: AI xrisker Nick Bostrom regrets focusing on AI risk, now worries that our fearful herd mentality will drive us to crush AI and destroy our future potential. (from an UnHerd podcast today) Nick Bostrom: It would be tragic if we never developed advanced artificial intelligence. I think it's a kind of a portal through which humanity will at some point have to passage, that all the paths to really great futures ultimately lead through the development of machine superintelligence, but that this actual transition itself will be associated with major risks, and we need to be super careful to get that right. But I've started slightly worrying now, in the last year or so, that we might overshoot with this increase in attention to the risks and downsides, which I think is welcome, because before that this was neglected for decades. We could have used that time to be in a much better position now, but people didn't. Anyway, it's starting to get more of the attention it deserves, which is great, and it still seems unlikely, but less unlikely than it did a year ago, that we might overshoot and get to the point of a permafrost--like, some situation where AI is never developed. Flo Read: Like a kind of AI nihilism that would come from being so afraid? NB: Yeah. So stigmatized that it just becomes impossible for anybody to say anything positive about it, and then we get one of these other lock-in effects, like with the other AI tools, from surveillance and propaganda and censorship, and whatever the sort of orthodoxy is--five years from now, ten years from now, whatever--that sort of gets locked in somehow, and we then never take this next step. I think that would be very tragic. I still think it's unlikely, but certainly more likely than even just six or twelve months ago. If you just plot the change in public attitude and policymaker attitude, and you sort of think what's happened in the last year--if that continues to happen the next year and the year after and the year after that, then we'll pretty much be there as a kind of permanent ban on AI, and I think that could be very bad. I still think we need to move to a greater level of concern than we currently have, but I would want us to sort of reach the optimal level of concern and then stop there rather than just kind of continue-- FR: We need to get to a kind of Goldilocks level of feeling about AI. NB: Yeah. I'm worrying that it's like a big wrecking ball that you can't really control in a fine-grained way. People like to move in herds, and they get an idea, and then--you know how people are. I worry a little bit about it becoming a big social stampede to say negative things about AI and then it just running completely out of control and sort of destroying the future in that way instead. Then, of course, we go extinct through some other method instead, maybe synthetic biology, without even ever getting at least to roll the die with the... FR: So, it's sort of a 'pick your poison'. NB: Yeah. FR: It just so happens that this poison might kill you or might poison you, and you just kind of have to roll the dice on it. NB: Yes. I think there's a bunch of stuff we could do to improve the odds on the sequence of different things and stuff like that, and we should do all of those. FR: Being a scholar of existential risk, though, I suppose, puts you in the category or the camp of people who are often--this show being an example--asked to speak about the terrifying hypothetical futures that AI could draw us to. Do you regret that focus on risk? NB: Yeah, because I think, now--there was this deficit for decades. It was obvious--to me at least, but it should have been pretty obvious-- that eventually AI was gonna succeed, and then we were gonna be confronted with this problem of, "How do we control them and what do we do with them?" and then that's gonna be really hard and therefore risky, and that was just neglected. There were like 10,000 people building AI, but like five or something thinking about how we would control them if we actually succeeded. But now that's changed, and this is recognized, so I think there's less need now maybe to add more to the sort of concern bucket. FR: The doomerist work is done, and now you can go and do other things. NB: Yeah. It's hard, because it's always a wobbly thing, and different groups of people have different views, and there are still people dismissing the risks or not thinking about them. I would think the optimal level of concern is slightly greater than what we currently have, so I still think there should be more concern. It's more dangerous than most people have realized, but I'm just starting to worry about it then kind of overshooting that, and the conclusion being, "Well, let's wait for a thousand years before we do that," and then, of course, it's unlikely that our civilization would remain on-track for a thousand years, and... FR: So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. NB: We will hopefully be fine either way, but I think I would like the AI before some radical biotech revolution. If you think about it, if you first get some sort of super-advanced synthetic biology, that might kill us. But if we're lucky, we survive it. Then, maybe you invent some super-advanced molecular nanotechnology, that might kill us, but if we're lucky we survive that. And then you do the AI. Then, maybe that will kill us, or if we're lucky we survive that and then we get to utopia. Well, then you have to get through sort of three separate existential risks--first the biotech risks, plus the nanotech risks, plus the AI risks, whereas if we get AI first, maybe that will kill us, but if not, we get through that, then I think that will handle the biotech and nanotech risks, and so the total amount of existential risk on that second trajectory would sort of be less than on the former. Now, it's more complicated than that, because we need some time to prepare for the AI, but you can start to think about sort of optimal trajectories rather than a very simplistic binary question of, "Is technology X good or bad?" We might more think, "On the margin, which ones should we try to accelerate, which ones retard?" And you get a more nuanced picture of the field of possible interventions that way, I think.

Abundance? Don't be so naive.

Congratulations to @ZohranKMamdani. We may differ on the economics, but I respect anyone who fights for their community with integrity and isn’t beholden to money or party machines.

Thanks Hugo Chavez for showing that the poor matter and wealth can be shared. He made massive contributions to Venezuela & a very wide world

The iPad: no flash, looks like a big iTouch, with an iTouch interface. I'm underwhelmed. [technology] 404 points http://teddit.net/auuxp

Nick Bostrom is starting to worry that AI fear could prevent upsides of AI in the same way nuclear fear prevented upsides of nuclear power. This is a watershed, pivotal moment for the AI risk movement. Bostrom has broken ranks.

btw, this is the thing that makes lab meat

I have never seen a hot person asking for a pause on AI.

people still in AI safety are like the kamikaze Japanese imperial fighters you find still hanging out on remote pacific islands not realizing the war is over

Hear, hear. Also fundamental scientific research. And economic growth. All of them, or any one of them, might easily become necessary to save the species. Within living memory, civilisation was saved by a breakthrough in metamathematics.

There is much more proof AI will reduce existential risk than increase it.

Overpopulation panic lead to... millions of forced sterilizations Nuclear power panic lead to... millions of tons of unneeded Co2 emissions and an emboldened Russia The GMO panic lead to... millions of blind and dead children in the third world AI panic will lead to...

No one wants to hire negativists. Which is why they set up independent institutes funded by rich doomers.

This could honestly be a cool ass way to communicate with people who speak other languages 🤷🏻‍♂️

Here is Nick Bostrom admitting that AI panic feels out of control right now, "like a wrecking ball" that could "destroy the future"

Until 50 years ago, CO₂ emissions developed in lockstep with economic growth in France. Since the early 1970s, the opposite has been true: emissions declined as people in France got richer.

Building things that can destroy the world should be illegal.

A new paper estimates that Chernobyl cost 318 million life years by discouraging the construction of nuclear plants and thus increasing air pollution. If we conservatively estimate life expectancy at 80 years, that's about 4 million lives. marginalrevolution.com/margi…

Artificial intelligence detects breast cancer 5 years before it develops #MedEd #MedTwitter #SCIENCE #technology #oncology #Cancer #Diagnosis