61–70 of 104 posts
It's not (only) artificial intelligence we're after, it's artificial consciousness. As noted in this article, machines already outperform humans at many tasks that humans solve with intelligence. Every year, there are new breakthroughs in that direction, and the list of tasks that humans can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking. We're well on our way to solving artificial intelligence. So why does it feel lik…
I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…
> But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. The idea that words and thinking are essentially the same (linguistic determinism) was discarded decades ago. Virtually all linguists today agree that while language influences thought, thought operates far beyond the constraints of language, so a "language model" cannot realistically hope to reproduce the entire gamut of human thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It appears to me that the entire field of AI research is utterly confused about this elementary distinction. That is because consciousness isn't a scientific concept but a philosophical, and sometimes religious one. >What we're really looking for is a machine that, like a human, decides on its own which problems to solve, and solves them without needing to be specifically directed to do so. We already have AI based…
> can always claim they are hardwired and deterministic Correct, AI is based on computer mechanics, a model, a model that can go south when even a single input medium provides sufficiently nonsensical input.
It's not (only) artificial intelligence we're after, it's artificial consciousness. As noted in this article, machines already outperform humans at many tasks that humans solve with intelligence. Every year, there are new breakthroughs in that direction, and the list of tasks that humans can do better than machines is rapidly shrinking. We're well on our way to solving artificial intelligence. So why does it feel lik…
Either you get a robot uprising, or you don't, and both of those sound bad.
We won't have AGI until we have an AI agent that feels the need to survive (i.e. tries not to "die"). It will be only then, meaning with a selfish sense of survival and the ability to better itself in its various mental models, that we'll have a chance at AGI and possibly a consciousness AGI at that.
It's also revealing of our times how our definition of intelligence is being able to do work: transform raw materials and free energy into tools and toys, handle the tools and toys in open environments. An AGI could perhaps want nothing to do with this strifling struggle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Ba...
I feel like we are at a point where AGI has to be be defined in a different way. This kind of list isn't enough, in my opinion to help actually delineate weak and strong AGI. At a layman's understanding of technology the way a computer works is as equally "magical" as seeing the output of the stable diffusion model. And creating art is a very clear step into "thinking". For many people AGI is already here. They have…
AGI does not mean “human level.” It means general intelligence. None of the things you mention are that.
AGI isn't defined as strictly as it needs to be. The current test, as well as the article, qualify strong AI as being or superseding "human level". Every single category, the AGI is being contrasted with the skills of a human. I am arguing that for some people, the current state of weak AI is useful enough that it could be mistaken for the first steps of strong AI.
I’ve been starting to wonder, is GPT-3 the beginning of AGI? I know, I know, it’s just a language model. But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. I solve problems in words. I communicate results in words. If I had no body, and you could only interact with me via text, would I look that much different than GPT? Does AGI really need anything more than words? Is it possible that simply adding more pa…
> But I’ve been thinking. About my thinking. I think in words. The idea that words and thinking are essentially the same (linguistic determinism) was discarded decades ago. Virtually all linguists today agree that while language influences thought, thought operates far beyond the constraints of language, so a "language model" cannot realistically hope to reproduce the entire gamut of human thinking.
That assumes that a "language model" actually restricts itself to "language" as the term is used by the linguists. I strongly expect the boundaries won't match exactly, although I have no particular hunch (much less strong argument) that they will disagree enough in the right ways to make bigyikes' suspicions correct.
Is the human brain a Turing machine? Do we know?
I think the thing missing from most AI discussions isn't how smart it is or how well it can do tasks, but that it doesn't have a "why". A motivation. Sure we can build computers that can solve problems, but why should they? We're not currently recreating "Intelligence" we're recreating skills . But then giving a machines a motivation is to run afoul of the Butlerian doctrine...
When an agent is also a self replicator it has a problem - finding the energy and resources, fending dangers, and doing that as part of a social group. If you have a problem, they you got the "why" part figured out. Then it's just a matter of surviving your choices, the "why"s that survive are the ones we have today.
We won't have AGI until we have an AI agent that feels the need to survive (i.e. tries not to "die"). It will be only then, meaning with a selfish sense of survival and the ability to better itself in its various mental models, that we'll have a chance at AGI and possibly a consciousness AGI at that.
What is "feels" and what is "the need"? Does a virus, biochemical or digital, also "feels the need to survive"? And also, why would an AGI care about survival? Perhaps a higher intelligence than ours will contemplate how doomed the planet is, being evaporated by the sun in circa 5 billion years [1], and how doomed the universe is, being evaporated by proton decay(?) in 10^100 years [2], and once the AGI internalizes…