If a lab achieves super intelligence they have absolutely no incentive to let anyone outside of their walls use it. They could simply take all of the economic value it can create directly for themselves. I think of it as similar to when YouTubers get big enough to make their own companies rather then advertising for someone else

This is incredibly adjacent to the rationalist sphere, which has been trying to reinvent religion from first principles for at least a decade now.

The truth probably is that someone looked at what LLM can do, understood its real potential (really, it is a fantastic search tools for existing knowledge), and then went a bit further and understood its potential as a scam (ie market it as the first step to Super AGI).

Really figured out that they can make more $$$ by selling it than actually using it themselves and selling the result.

The article's title kinda sounds like a light novel title.

AI hype is purely to cause mass hysteria for control of society.

To imply that the only thing that qualifies a god is superhuman reasoning ability, rather than, say, omnipotence, or even omniscience (neither of which are anything any physical being will ever achieve, subject to the laws of this universe as it is) would suggest that you already worship the very idea of reason itself as god. But just because your avatar of reason could have greater reasoning abilities than humans honestly isn't saying much; humans are not animals of reason, we are animals of emotion, though some of us are better at post-facto rationalization of our emotionally-motivated actions than others.

The problem is that even the creators of AI will have shrimp-brains compared to the AI. Would the AI follow the shrimp's instructions? Not very likely if you ask me.

AI is like honey to these magical thinkers.

Why even call it "god" if it was created by humans?

Should I call my kids "god" because they're smarter than me?

As an Italian, a culture where since forever religion is used for political reasons, I don't believe in any god, at least not any of the stories written by humans for humans ( maybe the universe is a sentient creature and that's our mega god ? Possibly, I don't know and I don't care ).

What is happening (or will) with LLM on the other hand is very human driven. So I am sure if we reach something perfect ( I kinda hope to see it but I don't think we will as my understanding of today llms ) it will be used by everyone because you can't contain progress ( open sources, piracy, countries that unite etc ).

Today we learn that AI is inevitable, god-like, and you better please your new God! If you do, you might get a planet of your own like in the LDS church!

So please sit down, evangelize your new God who will carve the stone tablets for you (Moses was a Luddite) and remember that there is no alternative!

Viewing AIs as gods is the wrong analogy and mostly just signifies that the user of the analogy doesn't understand religion very much. For 99% of believers, religion is a cultural system, not a question of omnipotent beings existing or not. AI companies are not priesthoods, they have no cultural output and are in no position to make ethical statements or be respected for those statements. Comparing them to the Catholic Church really doesn't make much sense.

AI is better thought of as a tool or a weapon, a piece of technology. Something like the printing press is a better analogy: it had a huge effect on society and information transfer, and while companies that owned printing presses did exert influence (newspapers) they were not worshipped or treated as some kind of protected class, and the technology itself dispersed over time as it became cheaper. It seems like the same thing could happen with AI.

They link to Dario's blog, but his first "critical" point is to

>[avoid] thinking about AI risks in a quasi-religious way

[delayed]