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

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#111

Post by htfu »

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…

Why would a Christian say a fetus is conscious? There's no such nonsense inherent in that faith.

I would extend your "some vegans" to "most everybody" - who seriously thinks complex animals are unconscious automatons? And how would that even work? Tiny few-celled organisms surely aren't and where exactly the line goes we don't know, and like you say it depends on how the word is defined and used, but isn't "stimuli causes not just reaction, but qualia" pretty standard?

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#112

Post by leroy-is-here »

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…

Thinking machines, like ChatGPT, do not have any intelligence because they cannot choose their own thoughts. We give them thoughts to think by our inputs and commands. Therefore _we_ give them intelligence by our inputs. Any measure of (textual) intelligence we have can be output by these machines. For example, we can ask it to do 4th grade arithmetic or graduate level mathematics.

But you are correct, eventually we will wrap these thinking machines into some sort of other machine. A machine that can observe the thoughts it produces with the thinking machine inside of it.

I talk about a lot of this here: https://leroy.works/articles/a-critique-of-alan-turings-conc...

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#113

Post by leroy-is-here »

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.

You are sentient because you can choose to ignore many of your inputs. You can choose to ignore people’s words and you can choose to ignore signals in your own body. A machine cannot choose to ignore it’s inputs.

I disagree if you are taking your argument to the conclusion that we do not have free will.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#114

Post by lostmsu »

JohnFen wrote: post #109
lostmsu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parent comment already addresses your point. It is amazing you can't see that. There are two questions: Is it a measure? Undoubtedly. Is it reasonable? Well, how'd you define reasonable? Would you say that if A is reasonable for something, and B is better than A for the same thing, then from "A is reasonable" follows "B is reasonable"? I would. So if you can claim a person to be a fool and another person to be sma…

> (But you don't, so I suspect you're not good at logical reasoning) Perhaps I'm not, but at least I'm good enough at it to be able to have a discussion without resorting to insulting the person I'm talking with.

Do you take any criticism with this attitude?

Everyone is stupid at times, question is if we are willing to learn from mistakes.

Like denying many years of research with good predictive qualities, which you could probably also see personally, should have made you suspect about your point of view.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#115

Post by gdubs »

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…

There's a less 'western' view of consciousness that it's not contained in any one thing, but a common thread of the universe itself. This may not be as 'woo' as it seems at first, since when we scientifically analyze an 'individual' it falls apart under scrutiny. Why does this pattern of electrons make me distinct from someone else? What is 'me' exactly?

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#116

Post by bjt2n3904 »

cameronh90 wrote: post #90
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beha…

I completely disagree with you fundamentally as I don't believe in God, but I find your argument more coherent than most of the other arguments over why AI isn't (or even cannot be) conscious or sentient. If there is no supernatural, then consciousness must be created using natural laws and therefore something that ultimately it is possible, somehow, to recreate again using the natural laws. I think determinism is an…

Certainly with generative AI, we've demonstrated that an evolutionary model can produce (as an example) a method for a bipedal robot to learn to balance and walk like a human.

But all this to me is a cheat. We've already built the robot, and the control systems, and feedback mechanisms, and placed a goal on the end result for it to work towards.

I think the external constraints we put on the system mean that the creation will never surpass the creator. Oh, the mechanical muscles will be stronger and faster to the point we can get robot ballet. But it will still be bounded by the limits of our imagination and capabilities.

When it comes to LLMs, I'm sure it will create fascinating stories that are loved more than Tolkien. But the stories will still be limited to the bounds of our own thought.

If you ever feel like discussing religion, my Twitter DMs are open!

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#117

Post by verdverm »

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…

There are a ton of places LLMs are already providing value today. Some of the biggest are turning unstructured data and user intent into structured data, helping with writing (no replacing), certain tasks in software development (it is often much faster to use ChatGPT as a reference or guide than search google and sift through the ever decreasing in quality results).

I'm paying now and want to pay more, if only they would give me API access to the most advanced models. GPT-4 is much better and Google will have a comparable model soon (tm?)

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#119

Post by pulvinar »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #112
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…

Thinking machines, like ChatGPT, do not have any intelligence because they cannot choose their own thoughts. We give them thoughts to think by our inputs and commands. Therefore _we_ give them intelligence by our inputs. Any measure of (textual) intelligence we have can be output by these machines. For example, we can ask it to do 4th grade arithmetic or graduate level mathematics. But you are correct, eventually we…

Whose thought comes first depends entirely on where you draw the starting line. You could just as well say ChatGPT has already chosen to ask you for a command, and it's you who are just following along.

Of course ChatGPT was designed and trained to do that. But then we're also designed (by evolutionary forces) and trained (by parents and teachers) to do what we do.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#120

Post by stevofolife »

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…

I get your premise but your examples are so loose that it hinders your point. Just my honest feedback.
Post reply on HN