Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI is just someone else's intelligence

zdziarski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#21

Post by reaperman »

bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

We don't have a good definition of consciousness or sentience. It needs to be specifically defined for every conversation. Generally we think we know approximately what version of "consciousness"/"sentience"/"intelligence" the other parties in a conversation mean by the context of their thesis, but sometimes confusion leads to people talking past each other.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#22

Post by tekmate »

bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

it's an uncomfortable topic for a lot of people because the idea that sapience/sentience is just a side effect of our brains being pattern matching machines with a giant knowledge graph of neurons means that we're not that special

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#24

Post by ravenstine »

alfor wrote: post #5

Everything is a remix (watch the movie) We are all using the intelligent of previous people, generations of humans. The same is true for AI. It’s not different from humans. What will we do once it’s conscient? Will AI have rights? Should we be able to shut it down?

This is what's so puzzling about arguments around LLMs and copyright. If virtually anything GPT-4 generates is a copyright violation because it was trained on copyrighted material, then that would imply that virtually all art produced by humans is a copyright violation given that humans wouldn't produce art unless they were inspired (i.e. trained) by previous art. How people don't understand that practically every piece of art or entertainment they've consumed is derivative, I don't know. Originality is, for the most part, relative, and if everything a trained intelligence produces is a copyright violation, then nothing is a copyright violation; the very concept becomes not only useless but counterproductive.

After all, without Plato, would we really have had Aristotle?

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#27

Post by bjt2n3904 »

bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

You have correctly identified the underlying assumption of this discussion.

From someone who has the opposite view, that human consciousness did not arise from an evolutionary process, but was created by God -- I believe we will never fully create an artificial consciousness.

I think a further assumption is that the human mind is a deterministic machine. If we could freeze whatever entropy is involved with human behavior, just like the seed of a Minecraft world, we could get the same result, and perhaps even control human behavior.

I don't think consciousness is deterministic like that. I have some things I can point to for justification, but much more largely, there are some strange implications that arise from "we're all dancing to our DNA".

Anyways.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#29

Post by worldsayshi »

tekmate wrote: post #22
bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

it's an uncomfortable topic for a lot of people because the idea that sapience/sentience is just a side effect of our brains being pattern matching machines with a giant knowledge graph of neurons means that we're not that special

Which begs the question, why isn't that 'special'? Still sounds pretty special to me.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#30

Post by uoaei »

reaperman wrote: post #21
bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

We don't have a good definition of consciousness or sentience. It needs to be specifically defined for every conversation. Generally we think we know approximately what version of "consciousness"/"sentience"/"intelligence" the other parties in a conversation mean by the context of their thesis, but sometimes confusion leads to people talking past each other.

Philosophers of mind do have definitions of consciousness and sentience, but for some reason people keep ignoring or rejecting them.

For the purposes of this discussion, "consciousness" per se is mostly irrelevant. Sentience is still important but has less to do with intelligence than with experience (though sentience is still very much involved in acts of reasoning).

There are different kinds of reasoning, and those are probably more relevant to the discussion at hand re intelligence: associative, deductive, inductive, abductive, etc.

Post reply on HN