Nobody cares about "AI" (Chatbot: I disagree.)

[Free]

(And I'm beginning to have my suspicions about some of you people. )

 

[Noodles]

An article generated by AI followed by a string of comments also clearly generated by AI... The 'dead internet' theory is starting to sound mighty plausible.

(And I'm beginning to have my suspicions about some of you people. )

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Because the phrase "artificial intelligence" or "AI" has been misapplied for hype and money reasons to machine learning in general, the industry (such as it is) had to come up with a new name for the sci-fi/fantasy concept that most people think of when they hear the phrase AI, and the term they eventually settled on was AGI, or "artificial GENERAL intelligence". But how exactly do they - the people building and working on AI - define AGI?

Well, the wait is over. Now we know!

Leaked Documents Show OpenAI Has a Very Clear Definition of AGI

OpenAI and Microsoft have a secret definition for “AGI,” an acronym for artificial general intelligence, or any system that can outperform humans at most tasks. According to leaked documents obtained by The Information, the two companies came to agree in 2023 that AGI will be achieved once OpenAI has developed an AI system that can generate at least $100 billion in profits.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Oh hey, that AGI thing is coming soon. Ho hum...

Sam Altman lowers the bar for AGI

OpenAI used to say that artificial general intelligence would change everything. Not anymore.

www.theverge.com

You can almost feel the non-excitement he's generating.

AGI is the new full self driving, yeah!

 

[Free]

Great...

Doctors Say AI Is Introducing Slop Into Patient Care

Early testing demonstrates results that could be disastrous for patients.

gizmodo.com

 

[Free]

I don't recall a financial ledger being used as the main entry point for the dawn of AI in any science fiction story I've ever read.

Microsoft and OpenAI have a financial definition of AGI: Report

Microsoft and OpenAI have a very specific, internal definition of artificial general intelligence (AGI) based on the startup’s profits, according to a new report from The Information. And by this definition, OpenAI is many years away from reaching it.

The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. That’s far from the rigorous technical and philosophical definition of AGI many expect.

 

[Noodles]

Because the phrase "artificial intelligence" or "AI" has been misapplied for hype and money reasons to machine learning in general, the industry (such as it is) had to come up with a new name for the sci-fi/fantasy concept that most people think of when they hear the phrase AI, and the term they eventually settled on was AGI, or "artificial GENERAL intelligence". But how exactly do they - the people building and working on AI - define AGI?

Well, the wait is over. Now we know!

Leaked Documents Show OpenAI Has a Very Clear Definition of AGI

I can't wait until it needs to rebrand again and we get AGI+ then AGI 5G

 

[Noodles]

Great...

Doctors Say AI Is Introducing Slop Into Patient Care

Early testing demonstrates results that could be disastrous for patients.

gizmodo.com

These studies are enticing because the healthcare system in America is woefully broken and everyone is searching for solutions.

America will do literally ANYTHING except adopt Universal Heathcare.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

Time for the metric health care system!

 

[Khamon]

I don't recall a financial ledger being used as the main entry point for the dawn of AI in any science fiction story I've ever read.

Microsoft and OpenAI have a financial definition of AGI: Report

A financial ledger will not be used as an entry point for the dawn of AI; we will likely not see the dawn of AI in our lifetime.

 

[Free]

A financial ledger will not be used as an entry point for the dawn of AI; we will likely not see the dawn of AI in our lifetime.

 

[Free]

Missed this last week.

OpenAI’s o3 suggests AI models are scaling in new ways — but so are the costs

Last month, AI founders and investors told TechCrunch that we’re now in the “second era of scaling laws,” noting how established methods of improving AI models were showing diminishing returns. One promising new method they suggested could keep gains was “test-time scaling,” which seems to be what’s behind the performance of OpenAI’s o3 model — but it comes with drawbacks of its own.

Much of the AI world took the announcement of OpenAI’s o3 model as proof that AI scaling progress has not “hit a wall.” The o3 model does well on benchmarks, significantly outscoring all other models on a test of general ability called ARC-AGI, and scoring 25% on a difficult math test that no other AI model scored more than 2% on.

Extraordinary claims require, etc. But anyways...

The high-scoring version of o3 used more than $1,000 worth of compute for every task. The o1 models used around $5 of compute per task, and o1-mini used just a few cents.

The creator of the ARC-AGI benchmark, François Chollet, writes in a blog that OpenAI used roughly 170x more compute to generate that 88% score, compared to high-efficiency version of o3 that scored just 12% lower. The high-scoring version of o3 used more than $10,000 of resources to complete the test, which makes it too expensive to compete for the ARC Prize — an unbeaten competition for AI models to beat the ARC test.

When you spend orders of magnitude more money to accomplish really only decent results in your scoring, I'm not sure you're improving things.

 

[Free]

We may have little to fear about the future - the robots are already fighting amongst themselves.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Curious, if predictable I suppose: security researchers are able to tell when script kiddies have used the homework-cheating machine to help write their malware because the code is weirdly well-commented.

Interestingly, when we analyzed the VBScript and the JavaScript, we were surprised to find that the code was not obfuscated. In fact, the attacker had left comments throughout the code, describing what each line does – even for simple functions. Genuine code comments in malware are rare because attackers want to make their malware as difficult to understand as possible.

Based on the scripts’ structure, consistent comments for each function and the choice of function names and variables, we think it’s highly likely that the attacker used GenAI to develop these scripts (T1588.007).5 The activity shows how GenAI is accelerating attacks and lowering the bar for cybercriminals to infect endpoints.

 

[Noodles]

Curious, if predictable I suppose: security researchers are able to tell when script kiddies have used the homework-cheating machine to help write their malware because the code is weirdly well-commented.

I bet it uses real variable names too. The one time I had to deal with some maleare on a website, all the code was basically impossible to read as a human because it was all complex nested shit full of escaped characters. It just looked like gibberish.

(It was this Cleaning an infected WordPress website (.ico virus) )

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

 

[Noodles]

I hate this timeline.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

lol.

Last night I was digging up some info about Amazonian Indigenous words. Asked for the people of a region, double checked the answer, so far so good, then asked for words I needed. One came up as 'Star', and okay, great. did another query and the same word came up but this time the definition was 'Moon'. I asked if the word meant Star or Moon? And AI replied, no, just 'Moon'. So off to a deeper dig outside AI and couldn't find anything about this obscure Amazonian language so I guess it was making shit up entirely.

It got the people in the region right, though, and I was able to look at better sources after that.

 

[Free]

Oops, times infinity.

Meta scrambles to delete its own AI accounts after backlash intensifies

Meta promptly deleted several of its own AI-generated accounts after human users began engaging with them and posting about the bots’ sloppy imagery and tendency to go off the rails and even lie in chats with humans.

The issue emerged last week when Connor Hayes, a vice president for Meta’s generative AI, told the Financial Times that the company expects its homemade AI users to appear on its platforms in much the same way human accounts do. “They’ll have bios and profile pictures and be able to generate and share content powered by AI on the platform… that’s where we see all of this going.”

That comment sparked interest and outrage, raising concerns that the kind of AI-generated “slop” that’s prominent on Facebook would soon come straight from Meta and disrupt the core utility of social media — fostering human-to-human connection. As users began to sniff out some of Meta’s AI accounts this week, the backlash grew, in part because of the way the AI accounts disingenuously described themselves as actual people with racial and sexual identities.

Do tell.

In particular, there was “Liv,” the Meta AI account that has a bio describing itself as a “Proud Black queer momma of 2 & truth-teller,” and told Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah that Liv had no Black creators — the bot said it was built by “10 white men, 1 white woman, and 1 Asian male,” according to a screenshot posted on Bluesky. Liv’s profile included a label that read “AI managed by Meta,” and all of Liv’s photos — snapshots of Liv’s “children” playing at the beach, a close-up of badly decorated Christmas cookies — contained a small watermark identifying them as AI-generated.

Meta now calls itself the "Social Metaverse Company." Do we add fake to that, now?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

The best part about that article is, there's absolutely no reason to believe the "Grandpa Brian" bot's supposed revelations about its creators and "true" history any more than its original admittedly-fake stories.