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

71–80 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#71

Post by pixl97 »

danielvaughn wrote: post #59
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…

This is still massively problematic for society and can represent a hollowing out of low to middle skill workers. You know the ones that are low paid and tend to have poor legal and governmental representation while at the same time experiencing hate from the remaining taxpayers for being slackers.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#72

Post by machina_ex_deus »

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 think consciousness represents a single real concept. It's just a word people use, some people use it in completely different contexts than others, what it means is probably more of a reflection of the user of that word than of some underlying reality.

You'll speak with a Christian and he'll say that even a very early fetus is conscious. Speak with other people, and it isn't. Some vegans say animals are conscious. Others don't. It's possible there's something real behind all of those people's definition of consciousness, and the real problem isn't that some are right and some are wrong.

They just disagree because it means different things for them, they just happen to be using the same word. The meaning of "consciousness" is more of a reflection of the values of the speaker than something real.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#73

Post by lostmsu »

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.

For consciousness it is fairly easy to build a reasonable metric like IQ is for human intelligence. Simply take any game (turn based if you don't care about speed, and real-time if you do), and measure instantaneous skill level in that game. Then you'd see that common effects that lower consciousness would lower the metric like sleepiness or drunkenness, so it would have a decent predicting power.

In fact almost any game is such a measure, so given a spread of games of varying complexity you can get an idea of relative levels of consciousness all the way down to rats if not lower.

For instance, it was shown that GPT can play chess. I also just tried it on a tactical Dota question (not actual control), and that worked too.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#74

Post by masswerk »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #13
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?

> The same is true for AI. It’s not different from humans I don't know how anyone can believe that. Maybe there will be some future AI where this is true, but it's absolutely not true yet. My argument is that humans absolutely should NOT invent AI that is on our own level. We shouldn't overstep building tools for us to use into trying to invent new artificial life. It's just a bad idea.

I'd say, we can't make a direct comparison, since there's no agency (and no committed responsibility behind this). On the other hand, we probably don't want this kind of agency (like a sentient AI), since this would evoke strong doubt's in its usefulness as a machine (as in a reliable, reproducible, and predictable output in given and known tolerances as a reaction to an input signal), as this would be now subject to a varying, maybe even escalating agenda and any kind of pathologies, which would give way to any kind of uncontrollable errors.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#75

Post by hospitalJail »

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.

We havent discovered silicon based lifeforms.

(Don't say transistors, because you know these are completely unrelated and mere coincidence)

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#76

Post by lostmsu »

bheadmaster wrote: post #54
edgyquant wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It is not too far from the usual meaning if you take it to be a number instead of boolean. E.g. humans ~100, rat ~1, single-cell ~1e-8, etc

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#77

Post by [deleted] »

lostmsu wrote: post #73
reaperman wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For consciousness it is fairly easy to build a reasonable metric like IQ is for human intelligence. Simply take any game (turn based if you don't care about speed, and real-time if you do), and measure instantaneous skill level in that game. Then you'd see that common effects that lower consciousness would lower the metric like sleepiness or drunkenness, so it would have a decent predicting power. In fact almost any…

[deleted]

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#79

Post by AvAn12 »

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…

Problematic analogy. The primordial single-cell organism was alive - a living, self-sustaining, self-replicating entity - and, to your point, the first in a long evolution of life forms. The compute procedures we refer to as "AI" have few similarities. GenAI and NLP are amazingly powerful for manipulating sequences of tokens and of text passages - quite handy! But completely different in kind from the intelligence of living entities - of which humans are but one of many.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#80

Post by JohnFen »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #72
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 think consciousness represents a single real concept. It's just a word people use, some people use it in completely different contexts than others, what it means is probably more of a reflection of the user of that word than of some underlying reality. You'll speak with a Christian and he'll say that even a very early fetus is conscious. Speak with other people, and it isn't. Some vegans say animals are consc…

The only definition of "conscious" that makes any sense to me is "self-awareness". The problem is that is just kicking the can down the road. What is "self-awareness"?
Post reply on HN