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

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#41

Post by machina_ex_deus »

Intelligence is not knowledge, and this article heavily conflates those two. Does a person "use" his teachers "intelligence" when learning, or is he using his own intelligence, and the teacher's guidance and knowledge?

We freely allow other humans to learn from us and see it as a positive thing. It's completely hypocritical to think that AI shouldn't be allowed to do it. That's just setting up impossible conditions because of prejudice against AI.

I hope that the AI revolution will just make us finally reflect and also stop preventing human access to information and knowledge. Good luck competing with huge AI which was trained on so many things if most humans can't barely access scientific journals and other knowledge by other humans.

Information should be free of restrictions, and so should knowledge. Nobody is actually revealing anything significant in patent claims anymore, it's all obfuscation which undermines the point of the system. Scientific journals are such a joke, they put up prices for articles that they know nobody will pay.

I hope AI produces a ton of intellectual property theft. I hope it will crush down the concept of intellectual property to extinction. I didn't support this nonsense when it came to human, so I'm not going to support it when it comes to AI.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#42

Post by bheadmaster »

iflint wrote: post #39

I 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.

I could imagine a philosophy professor with experience in Computer Science arguing that human mind is just a search algorithm - often times the human mind is just searching its training data for the right output (right, in human case, meaning the action that would maximize pleasure and minimize pain, both in long and short term).

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#43

Post by morkalork »

apendleton wrote: post #18
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…

> 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…

Animals are conscious, yes? They may not be as intelligent as humans but they still perceive their environment, have internal drives/desires, make decisions, play, plan routes, solve mazes/puzzles, hunt, have some forms of language communication, some use tools, exploit their surroundings, learn new things, cooperate/work in groups and so on.

If one built an AGI that was at the intelligence level of say, a rat or mouse. How would one go about proving it had the same capacity for consciousness as that rat or mouse?

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#44

Post by fnordpiglet »

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…

What bothers me more is that it’s more like “this isn’t amazing because it’s just xyz,” when in fact it’s amazing that it is just xyz yet does what it does. The fact we’ve produced a (perhaps poor) simulacrum of the collective mind of humanity by feeding it the collective online works of humanity is frankly amazing. Anyone who argues about stochastic parrots has lost the capacity to dream.

I’m also a bit of a hippy in that I’m not sure I believe in intellectual property in this way. I am an old free software in the rms sense guy (http://www.jwz.org/hacks/why-cooperation-with-rms-is-impossi...). I believe in trademark and copyright protection to the extent artists and authors and creators can monetize their work without plagiarism or worse unrewarded reproduction. But I also think remixing music, publishing excerpts, quoting, indexing, and, yes, training models in aggregate on otherwise trademark and copyrighted material is fair use.

I know these models can produce stuff that would violate fair use, however the use of that production from the model is what is the violation not that the model can violate fair use. Photocopiers can also violate fair use in similar ways if done in a way that violates fair use.

An issue people bring up is the model can’t attribute material produced to a copyright or license. That’s fair, and I think for code licensing it is the thorniest. But that isn’t the model itself that’s in violation. It’s the use of its output without any attempt to verify whether it’s encumbered or not. That to my mind is a second order problem that companies offering code authoring products need to tackle, and is frankly a simple information retrieval problem.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#45

Post by fnordpiglet »

nathan_gold wrote: post #19
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…

I don't know why people give so much favoritism to carbon-based intelligence. One row lower on the table, silicon, is just as viable.

(Can’t resist referencing pbs space time whenever applicable, best content)

https://youtu.be/469chceiiUQ

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#46

Post by soco »

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…

Why should I care whether AI is conscious or not? If they eradicate me consciously or by algorithm, am I less dead? Or do I get in a better heaven? We all agree that cows are conscious, where does it help them? We still eat them and they still try to stomp us... so for all means except pure philosophy, debating consciousness is useless. And I'm not a philosopher.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#47

Post by Zetice »

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…

Yes, yes, this is where we need to be heading, because it could arrive at my favorite (and scariest) conclusion (that others here have hinted at): not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#48

Post by adamwong246 »

AI today is like emitting carbon in 1900. Nobody realizes ATM just how badly they are being swindled. In much the same way a few profited by externalizing the costs into the atmosphere to be paid by people hundreds of years hence, we see the same cannibalization of the open web today. The web has always been a mostly benevolent shared-space- now its being stripped mined of it's usefulness. AI titans are gorging themselves because our laws and our "common sense" hasn't caught up to them.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#49

Post by bheadmaster »

soco wrote: post #46
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…

Why should I care whether AI is conscious or not? If they eradicate me consciously or by algorithm, am I less dead? Or do I get in a better heaven? We all agree that cows are conscious, where does it help them? We still eat them and they still try to stomp us... so for all means except pure philosophy, debating consciousness is useless. And I'm not a philosopher.

It's just an interesting question, I suppose.

Although it also has wide implications for ethics - the concept of human rights relies on empathy. And if AI can experience the world like a human does, and feel pleasure and pain, then either AI deserves rights, or humans don't. Or we just decide that only humans have rights because we are humans and we say so, in which case we're no better than Nazis.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#50

Post by edgyquant »

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…

>The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious, but rather just a biological machine.

I reject this assumption. We have no reason to assume cells aren't aware beings and that a sense of being isn't fundamental to at least all life.

Post reply on HN