Depending on what exactly this analysis means by Human Choices I either think it captured me well or got me completely wrong:
Human choices can make limited changes, but dominant forces constrain the outcome.
I actually believe Human Choice is the dominant force here. But I expect aggregate human choice to limit the changes a single individual can have on the global outcome.
transitivebs 33 minutes ago [-]
yeah, moloch will come for us all in the end
thevinter 1 hours ago [-]
> log-in with X
No thanks? Also why do you even need a login?
john_strinlai 1 hours ago [-]
it doesn't appear to be a requirement.
transitivebs 55 minutes ago [-]
yeah, it's purely optional. by default, your results stay private in your browser session
but i wanted a way for people to publish their results to share w/ others
esafak 14 minutes ago [-]
That's a reasonable explanation. IF you put it on the site there will be fewer complaints.
transitivebs 7 minutes ago [-]
good call; will update the sign-in to be less prominent and a disclaimer. appreciate the feedback
Suhinnall27 2 hours ago [-]
I believe your correct that this is a question everybody should ask themselves, and it would be very interesting to see how varied the responses are. I feel AI has been both a blessing and curse, and I hope it doesn't solely become the later.
transitivebs 54 minutes ago [-]
def plan to follow up w/ some anonymized analysis of the results if i get enough submissions
Marha01 57 minutes ago [-]
Gary Marcus in the center? He is a strong AI skeptic, I think he should be lower, away from the "Civilizational change" direction.
transitivebs 51 minutes ago [-]
i agree, but if you view the sources his answers are grounded in, he seems to have updated to being more moderate in light of recent progress. still def on the lower side of the predicted impact spectrum, but it seems he's taking the impacts more seriously now
i really spent a lot of time looking through results and trying to course-correct and fix the model where i found obvious issues, but it's definitely not perfect
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
grey-area 17 minutes ago [-]
Unask the question.
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.
transitivebs 8 minutes ago [-]
which is why it's so important for people to answer this question.. your views are 100% supported by this project if you leave your expected bias at the door ;)
grey-area 4 minutes ago [-]
I'm curious why you think answering this question and plotting people on a chart based on doom or bloom would help in any way for those who don't think either doom or bloom is an appropriate framing, and I also don't really know what you mean by 'expected bias', expected by whom?
It's not an open question, it's a very closed one which severely restricts the possible futures considered.
ddxv 1 hours ago [-]
P doom < 1 percent and at the bottom closest to incremental change.
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
transitivebs 55 minutes ago [-]
really appreciate you taking the time to test it out && hope it was useful
ctoth 1 hours ago [-]
Bloom (like a mold)
1 hours ago [-]
ModernMech 46 minutes ago [-]
Needs more dimensions for net worth and social media audience size.
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
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
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.
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