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

51–60 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#51

Post by masswerk »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #41

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 b…

I think, the differentiation between knowledge and intelligence is somehow besides the point, since it is about synthetic propositions, about the very synthesis that forms the relation between tokens. AI training is basically harvesting this kind of synthesis, at all levels, from basic compositions to entire, typical textures. And I doubt that such a complex, heavily regulated concept, like IP for applicative synthetic propositions (and products), will vanish in an instant. (It's about as likely as private wealth being reset to zero.)

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#52

Post by bheadmaster »

Zetice wrote: post #47
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.

It is somewhat contradictory that a sentient person would claim he's not sentient.

But the question or what consists sentience is still interesting. I personally believe that free will is an illusion, since all my actions are determined by A) my environment, the set or things I can physically do, and B) my internal state, mood, the information I've perceived and value judgements that stem from them, whether conscious or subconscious.

It is actually not that scary, to me. It's much more liberating - it gives me a certain feeling of calmness, in an amor fati kind of way. Things are as they are, and they cannot be any other way. There is nobody that will judge me outside of this world, since I am merely a small part of it. All my meaningful existence is here, and the concept of an immortal soul is merely a spooky story.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#53

Post by edgyquant »

Zetice wrote: post #47
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.

>not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't.

Anything presenting such a ridiculous conclusion is so wrong as to not be taken seriously. The only thing that is for certain in this life is that we are sentient, everything else is derived from that. Same with things proposing we don't have freewill, we do.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#54

Post by bheadmaster »

edgyquant wrote: post #50
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.

Do you, then, agree that a machine that is built to work in the same manner as that single-cell organism (which I assume should be possible with the current technological level humans are at) is also conscious?

That path would lead to a conclusion that all matter is, in some way, conscious. I don't disagree, but I find that such definition of consciousness diverges from what we usually mean by it - a walking, talking being that has thoughts and can communicate them to us, or something.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#55

Post by edgyquant »

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

Because there's no reason for anyone to take seriously this notion. It's not scientific and is just a different kind of religious nonsense.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#56

Post by billbrown »

I predict it'll all come crashing down once people start having skin in the game. (Right now, it's a toy, the source for a million overheated news articles and opinions.)

ChatGPT can pass the Bar. Okay, have it draw up a contract and have the parties sign it—skin in the game. When an omitted comma can cost millions[1], what will an LLM's hallucinations wrought?

[1] https://kagi.com/search?q=missing+comma+millions&r=us&sh=QDQ...

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#57

Post by aeternum »

larvaetron wrote: post #35

The article has a fundamental flaw, much like those who confuse copyright and trademark: intelligence is the algorithm; knowledge is the data set.

That doesn't quite work because almost all the algorithms humans and ai use are learned as data. IE Bayesian reasoning, long form multiplication and division, even the scientific method.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#58

Post by masswerk »

ravenstine wrote: post #24
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 pi…

The problem is the missing reference. As an artist, you don't just copy or use a style, you make the reference obvious. As an author, you include a citation, or, if it's fiction, you openly allude to the reference. This is actually why we can form a proposition like the one on Plato and Aristotle (which probably should include Socrates). The problem with the kind of "remix" and transfer of generative AI is that the reference is lost in the process. (Which is also a serious problem for any kind of verification.)

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#59

Post by danielvaughn »

billbrown wrote: post #56

I predict it'll all come crashing down once people start having skin in the game. (Right now, it's a toy, the source for a million overheated news articles and opinions.) ChatGPT can pass the Bar. Okay, have it draw up a contract and have the parties sign it—skin in the game. When an omitted comma can cost millions[1], what will an LLM's hallucinations wrought? [1] https://kagi.com/search?q=missing+comma+millions&r=u…

Agreed. I don't think it will necessarily crash, but there will be a serious reckoning for any business owner who thinks they can replace critical roles with AI. We're a long way off from that, if ever.

In the short term, I think AI will be most useful in areas where (a) indeterminate results are acceptable, and (b) the consequences of a "mistake" are either non-existent or negligible.

As humans are imperfect, there will undoubtedly be many poorly-conceived product decisions to use AI prematurely. I do think it will be entertaining to watch.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#60

Post by sdwr »

martythemaniak wrote: post #33
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…

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 "th…

This is a reasonable idea, and I have a addition: Imagine you are standing in front of a line of tennis players. On one end is Federer, Nadal, etc. The line moves through the top 100, 200, and continues down to regular club people.

At what point do you draw the line between a great player and a good one?

Clearly there are skills and aptitudes involved, but it ultimately comes down to the vagaries of fate. Consciousness, like tennis prowess, is

bestowed / earned / fought for / learned

as much as it is innate.

Post reply on HN