OK doomer.
Among the A.I. doomsayers
311–320 of 374 posts
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#312It's fun seeing how much threads like this are mostly folks' hot takes on the title as opposed to anything in specific to do with the article.
The intelligence level of the average HN comment is lower than your average chat bot
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#313It seems to me nearly every story about robots that gain sentience in human storymaking has them eventually turning against their human creators. Even the word robot itself comes from a Czech play were men develop an artificial human and these "robots" then ... usurp and destroy their creators. Am I the only one that finds this interesting and odd? I also suspect this narrative repetition is not totally unrelated to…
I think it’s indicative of human psychology. We realize we have the capability to deceive and destroy and be “evil”. We realize that, if we were to judge ourselves impartially, we would probably not come out un-condemned. If we can’t satisfy our own judgmental criteria, it’s doubtful an actual third party set of criteria would be satisfied either.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#314Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earthquakes are also unexpected and kill people all the time. What do you propose we do about the unexpected shifting of the tectonic plates?
We do invest quite a lot of money building things with earthquakes in mind, and have extensive early warning systems around the world. You were arguing that AI won't be dangerous, are you now arguing that it will be but we can't do anything about it?
It was nice chatting. Good luck in your future endeavors of preventing unexpected outcomes.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hardest part is the AGI. People could easily sell their souls to the AGI devil to get knowledge and power, since if it truly is AGI, it should be able to make ideas compelling.
Hold up. Why is the AGI a devil now?
Why would an AGI stick to what seems to be a set of arbitrary rules and not look outside of them? The AGI would be smarter than that, no? Or is there a way to make an AGI immune to hubris?
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#317[dead]
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
> https://www.mindprison.cc/p/the-technological-acceleration-p... That is a very good and insightful article. One of the biggest issues I have with AI enthusiasts is that they talk about creating these incredible capabilities ... then they imagine the resulting world with them will look like some hackneyed sci-fi work, like Star Wars, whose universe seems like it could be kinda cool to live in until you actually thin…
>That is a very good and insightful article. Thank you! > The only issue with the article is sometimes it's too optimistic, e.g. The reply below is criticizing for being too pessimistic, lol :-) I agree, it might be only a transient state. We really can't comprehend how we would deal with such existence if at all. Would we manage to keep our sanity? Nonetheless, I don't claim to have the right answers, just questions…
> What I do find interesting, are those that read it and still don't perceive it at all. Their response is "That is exactly what I want."
I think there's a basically (new movement) religious desire to see a lot of these technologies come to fruition, either radically fundamentalist or lazier and less informed, that interferes with the application of the implications. They believe in the idol of technology, as told in the good news of sci-fi, and avert their eyes from the glaring cracks, blemishes, and lifelessness of it.
I sense a lot of things in those types that I can't fully articulate, but some of the things they say are just mind-boggling, and gesture at a broken and unhinged aspect of software engineering culture.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how probability works. Probability already reflects your uncertainty. There's no "knowing the correct probability" except in very specific and rare situations.
It looks like you are agreeing with me in that for someone to assign a P to such an uncertain event
... I don't think you finished your sentence, but what I'm saying is that people should be (and subconsciously are) always assigning a probability to every event, or at least every event that rises to the level of their attention, regardless of how little concrete information they have about its likelihood of occurrence. If they have very little information, or a lot of information, that will be reflected in the numerical value of that probability. If an event is very uncertain, it means that the probability should be very high in entropy.
Re: Among the A.I. doomsayers
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
"intelligence" is too strong a word for it. It's "a will of it's own" perhaps... but at least in my experience that will is a loooonggg way from intelligent.
That's true but organizations are agents and they do act to preserve "themselves" which is much more than can be said about software systems we call AI.
I think "artificial agency" could have some legs as a descriptive term.
"Agency" is about having an effect on the world. But ascribing "intelligence" to some entity speaks to something more cunning and planful than just thrashing.