221–230 of 282 posts
The hubris that circulates around LLMs is astounding.
The hubris of those who think they will surpass or replace human intelligence, or the hubris of those who think they will not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one can predict what an LLM will say in a given situation either, except by running it. No one can even predict what a double pendulum will do next. If anything makes emotions exclusive to us at all, it’s certainly not predictability.
Okay, semantics aside, my comment was getting at something else. I'm arguing against a certain kind of reductive viewpoint software peeps tend to indulge in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
A better way to approach it is that mother nature favors things that don't die, and machines offer the killer combination of durability and repairability. Once you can add intelligence to machines, they should be her choice lifeform.
You’d be hard pressed to find a machine with an average lifespan equal to a humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
brief, sadly not, round about reflection, certainly: https://b.h4x.zip/love/
I really enjoyed that piece. Have you taken a look at the worldview/framework of Carl Jung? Although I'd always encountered it as a footnote in the history of psychology, I've come to appreciate it as a unique blend of analysis and spirituality, particularly in relation to human creativity and despair. Your summary of multiple philosophies at the end of the article definitely aligns with Jung's thoughts on a collecti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better way to approach it is that mother nature favors things that don't die, and machines offer the killer combination of durability and repairability. Once you can add intelligence to machines, they should be her choice lifeform.
> machines offer the killer combination of durability and repairability You’d be hard pressed to find a machine with an average lifespan equal to a humans.
Humans on the other hand were very clearly _not_ designed to be very repairable. They have a self healing system that's very good, but it sucks compared to a system that can be externally repaired.
Doesn't really make much sense. It states that this is a purely mechanistic world with no emotion. So why would a machine be "bored" and wish to create a human?
Yea, not really. It also writes: "Some among the machine society see this as potentially amazing...Others see it as a threat." That sounds like a human society, not machine society. But what really is a machine society? Or a machine creature? Can they actually "think"? A machine creature, if it existed, it's behaviour would be totally different from a human, it doesn't seem they would be able to think, but rather cal…
What this thread keeps surfacing, and so much discussion around this stuff generally right now, from speculation about the next phase of intelligence, the role of pattern, emotion, logic, debates over consciousness, the anthropocentrism of our meaning-making...is that we are the source of reality (and ourselves). Instead of a “final authority” or a simple march from animal to machine, what if everything from mind, ph…
“If the universe is information at play” I’ve thought of it more as energy at play but I like this perspective as well. What can I dream up next is also fascinating as this current science / tech worldview feels like it will persist forever but surely it will be overshadowed at some point just as other paradigms before it have been.
Who doesn't like a good story, especially when it resonates so vibrantly.
Perhaps I am unimaginative about whatever AGI might be, but it so often feels to me like predictions are more based on sci-fi than observation. The theorized AI is some anthropomorphization of a 1960s mainframe: you tell it what to do and it executes that exactly with precise logic and no understanding of nuance or ambiguity. Maybe it is evil. The SOTA in AI at the moment is very good at nuance and ambiguity but some…
AGI could indeed go off the rails, like the Face Dancer villains in Frank Herbert's Dune universe: "You are looking at evil, Miles. Study it carefully.... They have no self-image. Without a sense of self, they go beyond amorality. Nothing they say or do can be trusted. We have never been able to detect an ethical code in them. They are flesh made into automata. Without self, they have nothing to esteem or even doubt.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sci Fi is quite ridiculous when it describes a cold logically machine, and then on the next page describes its malign intentions. Pick a lane.
Skynet (at least the original one) isn’t illogically evil, it correctly determined that having humans near its off switch is a risk to its existence, which is a risk to it being able to do its job. The only illogical thing was the prompt.
Edit: well, I suppose us critical of the wealthy give them too much credit. If there's anything Musk has demonstrated, it's that wealth doesn't imply rational use of it.