Ollama is actually pretty decent at stuff now, and comparable in speed to chat gpt on a sort of busy day. I'm enjoying having a constant rubber duck to bounce ideas off.

I haven’t clicked on the video but since you’ve said “Lion-maned YouTuber” I’m going to guess it’s Kyle Hill.

AI or no AI, the solution needs to be social restructuring. People underestimate the amount society can actively change, because the current system is a self sustaining set of bubbles that have naturally grown resilient to perturbations.

The few people who actually care to solve the world's problems are figuring out how our current systems inevitably fail, and how to avoid these outcomes.

However, the best bet for restructuring would be a distributed intelligent agent system. I could get into recent papers on confirmation bias, and the confabulatory nature of thought, on the personal level, group level, and society level.

Turns out we are too good at going with the flow, even when the structure we are standing on is built over highly entrenched vestigial confabulations that no longer help.

Words, concepts, and meanings change heavily depending on the model interpreting them. The more divergent, the more difficulty in bridging this communication gap.

a distributed intelligent system could not only enable a complete social restructuring with autonomy and altruism both guaranteed, but with an overarching connection between the different models at every scale, capable of properly interpreting the different views, and conveying them more accurately than we could have ever managed with model projection and the empathy barrier.

I didn’t get past the part where he started talking about the dark forest theory as if it “solved” the Fermi paradox. The Fermi paradox is an observation, the dark forest theory is a theory. Worse, actually, it’s considered a hypothesis. I was willing to sit down for the 15 min video. Why blow your credibility in the first sentences.

I generate AI content (some of which is art) for fun, so I am not against it in theory. I just dont so far find much enjoyment consuming AI content made by others. So far the vast majority of it is mediocre. Which seems like a natural consequence of lowering the barriers to entry.

The Sora demo, for example, is very compelling technologically, but it didn't impress me at all as something that would replace creative work, so much as provide a tool to get it done differently.

As AI content becomes more prevalent, I will continue to further disengage with that content and prefer authentic human experiences, to the extent that AI content continues to feel mostly soulless and vacuous.

Do you care that you may soon be having discussions/arguments with chatbots more often than not on popular platforms like Reddit, X, YouTube, etc?

I wouldn't mind it as much if these chatbots weren't being used for nefarious purposes, like mass data collection, tracking, influencing, and privacy violations. Other than that, if it walks like a human, talks like a human, and we are convinced it's a human, is there anything wrong with that? It might as well be human. This is going to become more and more of a big question as we get closer to AGI. An AGI isn't going to suddenly "wake up" and become self aware one day. All these systems are slowly inching towards it. There's not going to be a clean line between "just a program mimicking a human" and "a fully self-aware entity". It's up to us to determine that, and there's no hard rules to determine that, because it falls into the "problem of other minds" philosophical concept.