Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Human

quarter--mile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 282 posts

Re: Human

#41

Post by OccamsMirror »

irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

As a teenager I used to revel in explaining to religious people that I believe humans are actually just the evolutionary step between biological life and machine life.

Re: Human

#42

Post by [deleted] »

irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

[deleted]

Re: Human

#43

Post by NhanH »

irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.

This sentence has way too many assumptions doing the heavy lifting.

“Pure logic machines” is not a thing because literally, there are things that are uncomputable (both in the sense of Turing machine’s uncomputability, and in the sense that some functions are out of scope for a finite being to compute, think of Busy Beaver)

To put it the other way, your assumption is that machines (as we commonly uses the term, rather than scifi Terminator”) are more energy efficient than human in understanding the universe. We do not have any evidence nor priori for that assumption.

Re: Human

#44

Post by jb1991 »

irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.

Can you elaborate?

Re: Human

#45

Post by jb1991 »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #26

Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…

> feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way.

Maybe the appearance is the same, but a bold claim to suggest the source is the same.

Re: Human

#46

Post by echelon »

jb1991 wrote: post #44
irjustin wrote: post #30

Related but an aside - Lately I've really been wondering if Skynet actually is the next evolution. That humans, like all animals before us, are a stepping stone and there is actually no avoiding machine overlords. It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. At least Fermi's paradox helps me sleep better…

> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines. Can you elaborate?

> Can you elaborate?

The universe tends to produce self-replicating intelligence. And that intelligence rids itself of chemical and biological limitations and weaknesses to become immortal and omnipotent.

If evolution can make it this far, it's only a few more "hard steps" to reach take off.

>> It happens to literally every existence of life across the universe because the final emergent property of energy gradients 100% leads to pure logic machines.

The spacefaring alien meme is just fantasy fiction. Aliens evolve to fit the nutrient and gas exchange profiles of their home worlds. They're overfit to the gravity well and likely die suboptimally, prematurely.

Any species reaching or exceeding our level of technological capability could design superior artificial systems. If those systems take off, those will become the dominant shape of intelligence on those worlds.

The future of intelligence in the universe is artificial. And that throws the Fermi Paradox for a loop in many ways:

- There's enough matter to compute within a single solar system. Why venture outside?

- The universe could already be computronium and we could be ants too dumb to notice.

- Maybe we're their ancestor simulation.

- Similar to the "fragile world hypothesis", maybe we live in a "fragile universe". Maybe the first species to get advanced physics and break the glass nucleates the vacuum collapse. And by that token, maybe we're the first species to get this far.

Re: Human

#47

Post by jcims »

l33tbro wrote: post #20
disambiguation wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My headcanon is that "boredom" and "fear" are probabilities in a Markov chain - since it's implied the machine society is not all-knowing, they must reconcile uncertainty somehow.

How would a machine know that it doesn't know?

Probably by comparing what it experiences to what it can explain.

Re: Human

#48

Post by bowsamic »

> There is no emotion. There is no art. There is only logic.

I would say that logic is a distinctly human activity, in fact, I would say we are arguably the living embodiment of logos

Re: Human

#49

Post by dbacar »

This is a classic (an in my opinion boring) view of what we humans are in general. The idea is visited at least on a couple of books and movies.

Re: Human

#50

Post by l33tbro »

jcims wrote: post #47
l33tbro wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a machine know that it doesn't know?

Probably by comparing what it experiences to what it can explain.

Sure, but I'm still not sure it would realistically function. All data in this scenario is obviously synthetic data. It could certainly identify gaps in its "experience" between prediction and outcome. But what it predicts would be limited by what it already represents. So anything novel in its environment would likely confound it.

It's a cool sci-fi story. But I don't think it works as a plausible scenario, which I feel it may be going for.

Post reply on HN