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

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#161

Post by danielmarkbruce »

billbrown wrote: post #159
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A first year in a law firm doesn't just draw up a contract and everyone blindly signs it. A first year at a law firm is an expensive GPT-4.

Good lord! This is your view of a human being that has completed 7–10 years of college after 12 or so years of education, passed a difficult Bar exam, interviewed with employees of a law firm, and experienced decades of perceptual, conceptual, and existential interaction with reality and society? "Expensive GPT-4" (This is where my "AI" fear mostly comes from: glib assessments of its ability coupled with devaluing of…

One may reasonably respond:

''' This is your view of a piece of technology which cost hundreds of millions to train and thousands of person years of research before that?

This is where my fear comes from: glib assessments of this technology coupled with unwavering belief that human intelligence is untouchable. '''

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#162

Post by billbrown »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #161
billbrown wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord! This is your view of a human being that has completed 7–10 years of college after 12 or so years of education, passed a difficult Bar exam, interviewed with employees of a law firm, and experienced decades of perceptual, conceptual, and existential interaction with reality and society? "Expensive GPT-4" (This is where my "AI" fear mostly comes from: glib assessments of its ability coupled with devaluing of…

One may reasonably respond: ''' This is your view of a piece of technology which cost hundreds of millions to train and thousands of person years of research before that? This is where my fear comes from: glib assessments of this technology coupled with unwavering belief that human intelligence is untouchable. '''

You could respond that way. I'm not sure where I devalued ChatGPT in my response in a similar fashion that you dismissed a "first year." (I will cop to regarding humans and their needs as superior to any technology.)

In fact, my entire "skin in the game" criticism is based on the idea that it _will_ be used that way, that it's powerful enough that people will invest into it too much hope, foresight, and insight. I have the utmost respect for the work being done and the highly-delimited benefit it provides.

I just don't regard it as "intelligent" nor do I believe it is the path to AGI.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#163

Post by danielmarkbruce »

billbrown wrote: post #162
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One may reasonably respond: ''' This is your view of a piece of technology which cost hundreds of millions to train and thousands of person years of research before that? This is where my fear comes from: glib assessments of this technology coupled with unwavering belief that human intelligence is untouchable. '''

You could respond that way. I'm not sure where I devalued ChatGPT in my response in a similar fashion that you dismissed a "first year." (I will cop to regarding humans and their needs as superior to any technology.) In fact, my entire "skin in the game" criticism is based on the idea that it _will_ be used that way, that it's powerful enough that people will invest into it too much hope, foresight, and insight. I ha…

It's already being used that way, because it's hugely valuable. People with skin in the game want to save money. Some partners at firms are concerned that it will be used so extensively that no one will be able to become a good lawyer because one needs to go through the stage of doing a lot of grunt work for it to all sink in. A partner at a firm commented to me ~ "this is amazing. I'd never have been able to become the lawyer I am without doing what this does though. I wonder what will happen."

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#164

Post by alfor »

masswerk wrote: post #58
ravenstine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Yes, when it’s clearly a derivative, but that’s not the common case. Mostly our understanding is derived from thousand of places and come out in different ways.

My kids learned to really read with Harry Potter. Must they pay JK Rowlings each time they formulate complex ideas, create new stories or read another book?

In the same way if the model was trained on thousand of animes pictures and now can generate in the same genre I don’t think we can apply the copyright rules there.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#165

Post by alfor »

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.

The way it work is not different from human. The AI learn the concepts, the abstraction and then can replicate following those patterns.

For now the public facing AI don’t have agency/consciousness, but it’s coming fast anyway. Many projects are building it in the open while probably hundred more behind closed doors.

The problem we will face soon is does an artificial consciousness have right. Can we shut it down without remorse if it’s similar to our own?

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#166

Post by grantcas »

alfor wrote: post #165
bluefirebrand wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The way it work is not different from human. The AI learn the concepts, the abstraction and then can replicate following those patterns. For now the public facing AI don’t have agency/consciousness, but it’s coming fast anyway. Many projects are building it in the open while probably hundred more behind closed doors. The problem we will face soon is does an artificial consciousness have right. Can we shut it down wit…

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.

My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#167

Post by alfor »

grantcas wrote: post #166
alfor wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way it work is not different from human. The AI learn the concepts, the abstraction and then can replicate following those patterns. For now the public facing AI don’t have agency/consciousness, but it’s coming fast anyway. Many projects are building it in the open while probably hundred more behind closed doors. The problem we will face soon is does an artificial consciousness have right. Can we shut it down wit…

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished betwe…

Thanks for that info, I will have a look.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#168

Post by stevenhuang »

JohnFen wrote: post #82
lostmsu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> a reasonable metric like IQ is for human intelligence IQ is not a reasonable metric for human intelligence.

IQ or some form of it is an example of a reasonable metric

G-factor as a concept exists but can only be approximated by standard tests or equivalent.

IQ tests are imperfect and flawed, but it's the closest approximation to G factor we have.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#169

Post by stevenhuang »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #113
Zetice wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a naive take on "choice" here; your freedom to "choose" extends only so far as the environment and your internal state allows it, which if you work backwards, you'll find leaves no room for such "choice".

And sure a machine can "choose" to ignore its inputs, chatgpt does it all the time depending on the prompt and rng.

If you spot the dichotomy above, you'll come to see that the affordance of choice can either be granted both to machines and humans, or none at all.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#170

Post by CatWChainsaw »

adamwong246 wrote: post #48

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 thems…

There's a reason Herbert's original idea for Butlerian Jihad was a spiritual revival and not a classic war of the machines that his son turned it into.
Post reply on HN