And its a good thing,it keeps them aligned
AI is just someone else's intelligence
31–40 of 170 posts
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#32I 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…
In Young Frankenstein the only factor was something like switching the poles from plus to minus and minus to plus. It seems like a great commentary on this topic.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#33I 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…
This is a good thought experiment, and I have a related one: Imagine you are sitting in a stadium full of your ancestors. You're at field level, beside you is your mom, beside her in your grandpa, beside him your great-grandma, and on until the stadium is full. Somewhere near the top is your great^100,000 parent, some kind of australopithecus ape-like creature. Where in this stadium will you draw the line and say "this is a person, sentient, conscious, deserving of legal rights, but the parent sitting next to them is an animal"
It's impossible to draw such a sharp line, because the boundaries of consciousness are extremely fuzzy. We should expect the same fuzzyness of AI and this period will likely last many generations of AI.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#34Counter Point: ALL software is someone else's intelligence.
Almost all of our intelligence is someone else's. That is what education does.
This brings up an interesting question: are we intelligent when we merely employ models, or only when we extrapolate from them?
In other words, does a maximally-parsimonious theory contain all the knowledge you need, or is there something extra (typically called "reasoning") that is needed to perform analysis on and draw conclusions from such a model?
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#35The article has a fundamental flaw, much like those who confuse copyright and trademark: intelligence is the algorithm; knowledge is the data set.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#36I 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…
[deleted]
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#37I 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…
> the only factor in that transition was the complexity of the nervous system It seems likely to me that some arrangement of nerves is possible that's comparably complex to ours, but does not produce consciousness. (I dunno, maybe some organism with much more complex sensory organs than ours that devotes so much complexity budget to that that it only has enough left to devote to general cognition to give it the intel…
> I suspect complexity is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness to occur. I don't think that takes away from your suggestion that consciousness in AI systems is _possible_, but I don't think it's the case that it's an inevitable outcome if only we can make our systems sufficiently complex. There's probably something about the specific structure of the complex thing we'll need to master as well.
That's a very good argument, and I completely agree.
As much as it's faulty logic to reduce AI to soulless machinery because we know how it works, it's also faulty logic to assume that scaling to more and more complex models will in itself create consciousness. At the very least, some mechanism of continuous self-modification is necessary, so current fixed-point neural networks most likely will never be conscious.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#38It actually goes a lot deeper than that.
Companies like this helped organize cheap workers around the world to just put all that information once and for all, to train the AI and interpolate / remix the answers for people: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2023/04/11/how-alexa...
OpenAI this year hired a bunch of people to just manually do the work of basic coding once and for all: https://www.semafor.com/article/01/27/2023/openai-has-hired-...
This is a story of using cheap labor to train machines at scale. OpenAI's content moderators have just unionized: https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-content-moderators-unionize...
Moreover, this is a story of taking labor of artists all over the world, remixing it at scale and selling it, destroying any sort of scarcity: https://the-decoder.com/ai-images-sold-on-the-internet-artis...
More artist issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/arts/design/ai-art-class....
There's GitHub, which had tons of people contribute code, and then the AI just ingested all that work for remixing by Microsoft Copilot: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsoftwarequality/news/252526...
And of course, finally there's Wikipedia, which had tons of people contribute actual changes, vet them for accuracy, etc. over 20 years, in many languages -- simply taken for use by AI companies: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7bdba/ai-is-tearing-wikiped...
But once again, in 2023, where we are now, there is a staggering amount of humans just producing this kind of content, and the AI is mainly used to model and remix it. Perhaps to do so can form some sort of internal understanding of this text, and that's what's interesting. But even Sam Altman has lately said "scale is not all you need". So a new approach is here needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#39I had a professor in grad school say that AI is just a search algorithm. I think that is an interesting way of framing things. Often times the model is just searching its training data for the right output. I don't think this diminishes the value of such models, recent advancements have shown how exciting "just a search algorithm" can be.
Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
hard to answer that without it looking like religion bashing to be honest