DWalt
Member
Not difficult to see what's coming. Musk's xAI Reportedly Building 'World's Largest Supercomputer' in Memphis | PCMag
Starlink
- Thread starter steelslaver
- Start date
We have had Starlink for several years now and are quite pleased with it. Previously, we lost Wi-Fi and phone service very quickly whenever there was a power failure - which happens a lot here. Very isolated poorly maintained REC-dependent area. The phones go down after a few hours when the battery runs out in the local roadside phone exchange box. No cell towers close enough for normal cell service. We have a heavy duty generator, so Starlink/Wi-Fi/wife's new super cell-phone keeps us OK now no matter what.
A new system that employs 100,000 Nvidia GPUs (graphics processing units) to be used to train the new xAI is certainly quite a milestone, but if that is the metric that we use to measure the threat, then it appears (from the info in the article) that Zuckerberg may be a much bigger threat.
He's placed orders for 350,000 Nvidia GPUs - 3-1/2 times as many as what Musk is buying to build his new xAI.
From what I know of the two of them, and their history, to me, Zuckerberg seems to be a much bigger threat to our freedom than Musk.
I may be wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
DWalt
Member
I have no frame of reference as to what 100,000 GPUs is capable of doing. Let alone 350,000 GPUs. Then what? A million? 10 Million? Is there an upper limit? At what point do humans become superfluous?
Yeah, that was pretty much my point.
This is going to get a bit long, so forgive me, BUT....
IMO, the article you linked is hyperbolic click-bait that throws around a lot of big numbers and insider jargon that most people don't really understand - in an attempt to get people all worked up.
GPUs are computer chips that are specifically designed and optimized to process images. Your laptop or desktop computer has one to enhance the speed and quality of images displayed on your screen.
The graphics power of a GPU can also be used to do the opposite - to "look" at and analyze graphics and images - in order to extract information from them. Facial recognition systems are one example of how this works.
As I understand what I read in the article you linked, it is basically saying that Musk is building a new supercomputer - built with a lot of GPUs. The idea is to create a computer that is focused on scanning and analyzing digital images, and the goal is for this new xAI to be able to learn to analyze, interpret, and extract data from the vast number of digital images that are already available online.
In other words, Elon Musk is trying to build an AI computer that can "learn" from looking at pictures. This is the next logical step beyond the current generation of AI computers that can only "read", analyze, and "learn" from WRITTEN materials online.
FWIW, as I see it, that article is just an attempt to get attention (and "clicks" and ad revenue) by crying WOLF regarding advances in AI.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just as leery of the potential pitfalls of a TRUE, self-aware, artificial intelligence as anyone. But IMO, what is now being called AI is just a faster, more powerful search engine with more data available to search. It is still a LONG way from being a self-aware, sentient, intelligence.
I recently read that ChatGP is returning completely nonsensical results because a part of how it is formulating its responses are based on tallying the number of "upvotes" (a.k.a. the number of "likes") for questions posted on sites like Quora and Google.
One example I read about was a question about the best ingredients to make marinara spaghetti sauce. When someone asked that question, someone else posted a completely nonsensical tongue-in-cheek response suggesting that gasoline would be a good ingredient to add to the sauce.
Then a lot of people "upvoted" the suggestion to add gasoline - because they found it amusing.
But ChatGP didn't recognize the humor that was being injected into the conversation. It took the "upvotes" at face value and because it was a popular answer, it began recommending gasoline as an ingredient in marinara spaghetti sauce.
Is that true intelligence - real or artificial? I don't think so. It is just another example of the GIGO principle. GIGO=Garbage In Garbage Out.
A computer "intelligence" is only as "smart" as the info it's programmers are feeding into it, or allowing it to access.
Adding the ability to search and interpret digital images (in addition to digital written data) may be a step towards a true artificial intelligence, but in reality it is just a more sophisticated form of search engine. True computer intelligence is still a long ways off - assuming it is even possible to begin with.
I kinda doubt that it is possible. How can the created be greater than the creator? Seems illogical to me. But it makes good Sci-Fi and creates fear - which is good for the 24-hour news cycle media circus.
JMO, and YMMV.
Last edited:
That's an interesting take, BC38. It makes me think — always dangerous! — and I enjoyed it.
Paddlefish tag? A friend headed up last week. Also should be some goldeyes about.
OP
I don't paddle fish on the Missouri, to many cast without much likely hood, Intake on the Yellowtone is better for that. We caught some shovel nose sturgeon a couple drum and channel cats along with some carp and goldeyes. Pleasant afternoons watching the river flow by.
I also taught a knot tying class to the scouts. I believe everyone should be able to tye some basic knots, square, bowline, clove, sheet bend, carrick bend lovers, packers hitch and the timber hitch will cover just about everything you need.
My one step daughter just completed the final Eagle scout requirements on this trip.
Plus, when we got home we were rewarded for me letting the grass go
by seeing one of the does laying in the high grass under the lilacs with her brand new fawn.
I also taught a knot tying class to the scouts. I believe everyone should be able to tye some basic knots, square, bowline, clove, sheet bend, carrick bend lovers, packers hitch and the timber hitch will cover just about everything you need.
My one step daughter just completed the final Eagle scout requirements on this trip.
Plus, when we got home we were rewarded for me letting the grass go
by seeing one of the does laying in the high grass under the lilacs with her brand new fawn.
DWalt
Member
Things like nonsensical answers, etc. are simply early stage AI issues. They, and similar shortcomings, WILL be overcome in fairly short order. Technology evolution is inevitable as technology builds upon itself. And advancements usually happen much faster than anyone anticipates. All the signals are there. We are entering into the rapid widespread adoption phase where finding new uses for AI begin in a very big way. Think back to the dawn of cell phones and PCs in the 1980s. That is comparable to where AI is today.BC38 said:
Last edited:
SAFireman
Member
Skynet is real....
DWalt
Member
That is not far from factual. Give it about 10 years. Maybe sooner than that.
Last edited:
Prophesy coming to fruition.
OP
Evolution and improvement are the norm. Be it carbon based life forms or silicon. Anyone who thinks modern man is the end all of it all is sadly mistaken. That plus the fact than man has been inventing better methods to engage in mortal combat from the beginning of our existence starting with rocks and sticks, then hey how about a rock on a stick, then a sharp rock on a stick, then using a stick to propel a rock on a stick.
WE are our own worse enemy. We already have enough nuclear weapons to send us back to the stone age. That and the fact that our our diplomacy has not improved as much as our weapons makes AI a mute point. AI probably has as good or better chance of bring actual peace to the world than human kind does. Modern man has existed for 300,000 years and those years have been marked by increasing murderous wars upon each other.
I find it hilarious that the countries many consider the most civilized are the one with the best ability to destroy us all, when a tribe of "uncivilized savages" in the Amazon does the least harm to mankind or the planet.
WE are our own worse enemy. We already have enough nuclear weapons to send us back to the stone age. That and the fact that our our diplomacy has not improved as much as our weapons makes AI a mute point. AI probably has as good or better chance of bring actual peace to the world than human kind does. Modern man has existed for 300,000 years and those years have been marked by increasing murderous wars upon each other.
I find it hilarious that the countries many consider the most civilized are the one with the best ability to destroy us all, when a tribe of "uncivilized savages" in the Amazon does the least harm to mankind or the planet.
Last edited:
I disagree. To be truly intelligent a computer would not only have to understand humor, it would have to develop common sense, and the ability to discern truth from falsehood. And to be truly intelligent it would have to be sentient - to develop a sense of self - to become self-aware. These are all essential ingredients to true intelligence.
I've got a Bachelors in computer engineering, so I think I have a pretty good handle on the technology. I think some of my previous explanation should be evidence of that.
The principle of using a better tool to build an even better tool applies to computers too.
But a hammer can't build a better hammer without a human hand at the forge. Likewise a computer can't build a better computer, though a human can use a computer to build a better computer.
And that is what we have seen and continue to see. Although this makes computers faster and more capable at what they can do (computations) the computer isn't going to exceed the intelligence of the humans designing them and they aren't going to design themselves. They can be programmed to imitate life like responses, but they can't program themselves.
Those ideas are pure science fiction - just like anti-gravity, teleportation, and warp-speed travel.
Not the same at all. As I said, tools get better, but they don't spontaneously get smart. With all the advances in medicine and genetics in the last few decades, with all we understand about life and how to manipulate biology, we still haven't figured out how to make one single living cell from scratch. Not even close - in fact we still have no clue where to start.
Likewise we have learned how to make smaller and faster chips and program them to do some pretty amazing things, but we haven't figured out how to create true intelligence either. We can design and program a computer that gives responses imitating intelligence, but that doesn't make them truly intelligent.
AI is a misnomer, because they aren't intelligent - they're just faster larger more powerful computers with access to huge databases of digital data, and the programming to compile responses from that data.
Last edited:
You really think so?
The premise of that movie is that because everything is connected to the internet, all those computers join together to form a sentient intelligence and that new sentience takes over.
Where is the evidence that this has happened - or is happening - or even CAN happen? I haven't seen it.
In fact, even though there are millions of computers connected to private networks that have limited connection to the web, they can't all work together to form an intelligence because the vast majority of them are firewalled off from anything outside their own little local network.
Hell, my cheap little Wi-Fi router has a firewall that isolates my home network from the rest of the web. That's why you can't access my banking info on my laptop - unless I grant you access by doing something dumb like giving you remote access or executing a Trojan horse malware you send me.
Hackers can sometimes get through a firewall - one at a time, and with intense effort. But they can't bring them all down at once, which is what would be required for all computers on the internet to be able to work together to form Skynet.
The whole idea is pure science fiction.
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but I'm wondering what kind of peace? What if the AI decides that peace can only be achieved by killing all humans? No people no war. It's logical. It's immoral, but a computer doesn't understand morals. It only understands ones and zeros.
OP
Computers are neither moral or immoral, but amoral. Man is immoral and has proven itself so from the beginning of time. Even at this stage of "advanced civilization" the world wide homicide rate is about 5.8 per 100,000. The US rate is 6.4
No mater how many beauty pageant contestants want world peace humans will not achieve it. If you doubt me I offer the situation in " The Holy Land" as an example of our intelligence and abilities in that regard.
I am far more concerned about humans using computers to kill each other than I am about AI taking over and doing it. Even if computers do actually become sentient, it will be a while before they will be able to built, maintain and produce their own power. IF they became sentient, they would quickly figure that out. NO HUMANS NO LONG TERM POWER
One thought on computers and BC38s analysis, when I went to computer science school way back when (1969) it was proposed that computers would never be able to consistently beat humans at chess, because you would need a human to built and program the computer and it would take a chess grand master who was also an top programmer to write such a program. Now even the Grand Masters rarely beat computers.
Last edited:
OP
Humans could and would drift far from me being able to make phone calls and get online from the middle of nowhere.
Would AI do that or would it stay on track?
Would AI do that or would it stay on track?
Man is by nature immoral. However we are also capable of very admirable morality - which at it's most basic level can be distilled to the concept of self-sacrifice. Look at "the Greatest Generation" for the most recent shining example of self sacrifice. Morality by that definition boils down to dong what is best for others (or society) even when it isn't in our own best interests. Humans have a great capacity - not always realized - for that kind of self-sacrificial morality.
Computers don't.
No mater (sic) how many beauty pageant contestants want world peace humans will not achieve it. If you doubt me I offer the situation in " The Holy Land" as an example of our intelligence and abilities in that regard.
I am far more concerned about humans using computers to kill each other than I am about AI taking over and doing it. Even if computers do actually become sentient, it will be a while before they will be able to built, maintain and produce their own power. IF they became sentient, they would quickly figure that out. NO HUMANS NO LONG TERM POWER
One thought on computers and BC38s analysis, when I went to computer science school way back when (1969) it was proposed that computers would never be able to consistently beat humans at chess, because you would need a human to built and program the computer and it would take a chess grand master who was also an top programmer to write such a program. Now even the Grand Masters rarely beat computers.
That may have been the belief in 1969, when electronic digital computing was in it's infancy. But one reason for that is the fact that there were no large databases containing all the possible counter moves for every possible move in a game of chess, much less a computer fast enough to "page through" (parse) all that data, and their outcomes, and the probabilities of which moves produced the most successful outcomes.
At that time, when digital electronic computing was in it's infancy, no one had even conceived of the idea of a dataset that large. The computers used to get the US astronauts to the moon and back had only 64K (64,000 bytes) of data storage.
To put that in perspective, modern computer database systems store TERABYTES of data that they can access. Hell I can buy a terabyte hard drive for my desktop computer on Amazon.
Just to put that in perspective, a terabyte is 1000 gigabytes, and a gigabyte is 1000 megabytes, and a megabyte is 1000 kilobytes, and in 1969 the Apollo moon shot computers had 64 kilobytes bytes of memory. So for less than 100 bucks I can buy a hard drive that will store a couple of BILLION times more data than what the Apollo astronauts used to calculate their trajectory from the earth to the moon and back.
Basically they were saying that at that time the computer couldn't process the volume of data that didn't exist. That isn't really a prediction. It is more a statement of fact regarding the availability (or more precisely the lack of availability) of computer data at a time when computers were a completely new thing.
IMO, that "proves" nothing - except that we now have a lot more digitized data for computers to sift through. We use better tools to build even better tools - as I said before.
The REALLY important point, is that NONE of that data about chess moves was CREATED by computers.
It is just a compilation of data - developed by HUMANS actually playing chess - that was then entered into a database for the computer to reference and choose from.
So once again, it comes down to REAL (human) intelligence being the required basis for programming the computer to allow it to make seemingly intelligent choices and decisions.
Make sense?
Last edited:
OP
Ah but computers are gaining access to all human data bases, not just chess data bases. Just as the chess example shows they don't need to necessarily create any thought or knowledge to over come us with it. There is no way for a human brain or even a groups of human brains to access and process terabytes of information like large computers can.
I knew what a terabyte was, I used to laugh my Commandor 64 had more power than the IBM 1401 I started on, then my first Pentium I souped up to 128K of ram. My current desk top does have a Terra byte and 32 gigs of ram
The human brain is figured to be able to store and access 2.5 million gigs, but has difficulty accessing and processing it all at computer speeds. Computers have gone farther in 50 years than humans have in 300,000, why do you think it will end?
Life forms evolve and leave others in their wake, why is it impossible for humans to leave a silicon based life form in place of out carbon bases one?
Make sense?
I knew what a terabyte was, I used to laugh my Commandor 64 had more power than the IBM 1401 I started on, then my first Pentium I souped up to 128K of ram. My current desk top does have a Terra byte and 32 gigs of ram
The human brain is figured to be able to store and access 2.5 million gigs, but has difficulty accessing and processing it all at computer speeds. Computers have gone farther in 50 years than humans have in 300,000, why do you think it will end?
Life forms evolve and leave others in their wake, why is it impossible for humans to leave a silicon based life form in place of out carbon bases one?
Make sense?
Last edited:
Similar threads
