ChatGPT and the AI Apocalypse • Hacker News Board

Re: ChatGPT and the AI Apocalypse

#101

Post by MrScruff » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 9:37 AM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #72

MrScruff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. A lot of these type of articles on AI make the simultaneous mistakes of understating what even the current iterations of models are capable of, while overstating the complexity of our own intelligence. As these models get larger, and we start moving up the ladder of emergent behaviours, there will come a point (possibly quite soon) where the sort of distinctions being drawn are irrelevant. “Oh that’s ju…

That doesn't address the alignment problem. As Yudkowski has pointed out, the space of possible minds is vast. Humans only occupy a small area. The models were are designing are not animal/biological minds. They don't have the same evolutionary drives. We're creating minds in a different part of the mind space, and there's a good chance they will figure out solutions that are not beneficial to us.

Absolutely, I would just addressing the ‘it’s just statistical’ argument. The vast majority of human behaviour is learned. We’re all implicitly ‘saying what seems right to achieve some underlying fitness function’ all of the time. That’s what fashion is about. But yes, definitely no reason to assume an AI will think like us underneath it all.

Re: ChatGPT and the AI Apocalypse

#102

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 12:12 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #99

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you so sure it is reliable now? Or in the past for that matter? The same dynamics of trust existed before as exist now, it's just that we have a lot more sources than we used to.

> What makes you so sure it is reliable now? The technology to fake it isn't in widespread use. > Or in the past for that matter? The technology to fake it didn't exist. > The same dynamics of trust existed before as exist now No they didn't.

There's a reason the words "post-truth era" have been thrown around a lot in the past decade or so you know.

It isn't like we suddenly developed the ability to lie, have blind spots, biases, and inhabit echo chambers, we only developed the technology that made it obvious that we were doing that all the time. News in the past wasn't actually more trustworthy, it just felt that way because we had far fewer sources of it.

All that changes with AI here is volume.

Re: ChatGPT and the AI Apocalypse

#103

Post by sylware » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 12:49 PM UTC

sylware wrote: post #96

shagie wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could spin up a VM that has a browser in it and use that to create the account and destroy the VM afterwards. You could use selenium with headless chrome. If you have a smart phone running any browser there, you could use that. There are some auth checks to make sure that a single person isn't signing up multiple accounts to get the free credits and if that sort of thing is a deterrent to you using it you may fin…

Not "difficult" : impossible. Well, I'll wait for those anonymous/public rate limited keys or a noscript/basic (x)html registering process, or www sites which will propose basic (x)html form based prompts.

Actually, best-effort, temporary, public keys would be more appropriate for their web API waiting for them to do a proper job at working with noscript/basic (x)html browsers.

Re: ChatGPT and the AI Apocalypse

#104

Post by bakuninsbart » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

a_cardboard_box wrote: post #98

bakuninsbart wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really what the idea of determinism excluding free will is about: Let's assume for a second that the Big Bang is the singular starting point of the universe. The Big Bang causes the first things to exist or move. Everything else exists in a cause-effect-relationship with this first move, and we could imagine the whole history of the universe as a directed graph of causes and effects, with Earth, living bei…

Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical? So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment a…

> Can we agree that consciousness is outside the realm of mathematics? That, while there could be a formula that determines what our conscious experiences should be, the fact that we actually experience them, as opposed to them just existing in some abstract sense, is not mathematical?

There's certainly a difference in our feelings, I'm not sure if a mathematical description of experience has to be incomplete - but I agree that all attempts of doing so have been complete failures.

> So if the behaviour of our universe can be described entirely mathematically, isn't it weird that it physically contains this comment about how we know that we're in a universe that contains non-mathematical stuff? It's of course possible. But I find it strange.

It is, but this kind of self-referential process isn't unheard of, in fact we are currently consciously discussing consciousness. A popular sentiment in some sci fi circles (fe. Babylon 5) would be to posit that life is the universe's attempt to become conscious of itself. If true, it would do worlds for us to regain the self-importance lost from Galilei and Darwin.

> Isn't this necessarily the case for anything to exist? Is it more strange for there to be exactly one thing without a cause (the initial conditions of the universe), or for things without causes to just be a regular part of the universe we live in?

You are absolutely right, I think we are generally much more used to the "first mover" concept, since it is the basis of most, if not all religions. Personally I find the concept of truly random events to be very unsettling. A possible out could be that the causality graph is not acyclic, that is, that future events can inform the past, and that for example the "last" thing to happen in the universe "caused" the first.