[robbedpeter]

It's clear that gpt models are more competent with knowledge work than a significant percentage of humans. This is implicitly threatening, to the extent that it seems people will refuse to even consider the possibility. Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans.

We thought we'd have time for the mental tasks as ai encroached on the menial, but it seems to be the reverse.

By every measure Turing himself considered, the Turing test has been passed. It's only the post-gpt-2 peanut gallery that have insisted on moving the goalposts straight into mysticism and magical thinking.

Machines will be better at everything humans can do, and accomplish things we cannot.

We are living in interesting times, different from anything that's come before - we exist in relation to systems that are learning to think like us.

[katabasis]

If we continue to move the goalposts of what defines intelligence into mystical/ineffable territory, we may find that humanity no longer qualifies as “intelligent” either.

[hyperpallium2]

The Turing test employs interview, not artistic creation, to distinguish the human.

The mechanisation of knowledge work has been ongoing (at least) since human accounting with beans - before writing; before number; maybe, even before language.

The humans' real fear will rise when they meet with superior argument.

[TaylorAlexander]

> Dall-e is a better artist than 99% of humans.

Really depends on whether “art” means “making drawings of things” or “making people feel something”. It’s also a very narrow domain. Dall-e can’t sculpt clay (for example), even if you attached a robot arm, without essentially replacing a bunch of the training system logic. Out of the box Dall-e has no provision to manipulate anything to produce art.

[mensetmanusman]

Where can I try Dall-e? If it’s not available to test, how can we know?