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

The Future of AI

lucijagregov.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: The Future of AI

#31

Post by hdgvhicv »

0x3f wrote: post #5
trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

> 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? People question this all the time

Indeed, philosophy has been around for millennia, probably longer than the written word.

Re: The Future of AI

#32

Post by noiv »

trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

You have truth until someone finds a counter example, which can be ignored. So, truth is just a matter of conventions shared by humans.

Re: The Future of AI

#33

Post by plastic-enjoyer »

jwpapi wrote: post #16

I don’t see any other outcome anymore to be honest, after seeing how humans use AI and how AI works and how providers tune their models. To me it’s given: - AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal - Providers tune ruthlessness to get stronger AIs versus the competitor - Humans can’t evaluate all consequences of the seeds they’ve planted. Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point. C…

> Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point.

It's industrialization and mechanized warfare all over again

Re: The Future of AI

#34

Post by thegrey_one »

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

>The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and cultures around it.

The rules we go by are based on our strengths and weaknesses. They can at most apply to ourselves, and to other forms of life that share certain things with us. Such as feeling pain, needing to sleep, to eat, needing help, needing to breathe air, these generate what we feel as "fear" based on biology etc. You cannot throw these kinds of values on AI, or AGI, as it will possess a wildly different set of strengths and weaknesses to us humans.

Re: The Future of AI

#36

Post by trilogic »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #26
trilogic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It always has been what you believed in That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth". Therefore the "Truth" has to be a CONSTANT.

can you have truth with a subjective language. I say it’s snowing, you say not, because we determine that “snowing” kicks in at different levels. Or perhaps we have different sensory inputs. If I’m facing the window and say the man has a red tshirt”, and you are facing away. Even if we agree on the definition of man, red and tshirt, you still don’t know if that’s true or not Can you believe your own senses? A car air…

Very well answered. Truth or not in whatever definition, it would be enough that satisfy the fundamental questions. This is like taking the car but not knowing, why and where you going. Is like waking up but not knowing but waking up anyway. What a story, been going on since "I was born" :)

Re: The Future of AI

#37

Post by Lerc »

jwpapi wrote: post #16

I don’t see any other outcome anymore to be honest, after seeing how humans use AI and how AI works and how providers tune their models. To me it’s given: - AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal - Providers tune ruthlessness to get stronger AIs versus the competitor - Humans can’t evaluate all consequences of the seeds they’ve planted. Collateral and reckless damage is guaranteed at this point. C…

>AI in it’s current state is ruthless in achieving its goal

I don't believe this to be a trait of any AI model, the model just does the right thing or the wrong thing.

The ruthless maximising of a particular trait is something that happens during training.

It does not follow that a model that is trained to reason will nedsesarily implement this ruthless seeking behaviour itself.

Re: The Future of AI

#38

Post by marginalia_nu »

mentalgear wrote: post #2

Agree with many of the points. However one at the root of it all seems easily definable - if we only want. > we can’t agree on a shared ethical framework among ourselves The Golden Rule: the principle of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It is a fundamental ethical guideline found in many religions and philosophies throughout history so there is already a huge consensus across time and culture…

The core question of ethics as posed by the ancient Greeks is something like "what is the best way to lead your life".

"... to accomplish what?", is a damn reasonable follow-up, and ends (telos) is something the same Greeks discussed quite extensively.

Modern treatments have tried to skip over this discussion, and derive moral arguments not based on an explicit ends. Problem being they still smuggle in varying choices of ultimate ends in these arguments, without clearly spelling them out, opting to hand-wave about preferences instead.

As such this question is often glossed over in modern ethical discussion, and disagreements about moral ends is the crux of what leads to differing conclusions about what is ethical.

Is it to maximized your own happiness like Aristotle would argue, or the prosperity of the state, or the salvation of the soul, or to maximize honor, or to minimize suffering, or to minimize injustice, or to elevate the soul, or to maximize shareholder value, or to make the as world beautiful as possible, or something else?

If you fundamentally disagree about what our goal should be, you're very unlikely to agree on the means to accomplish the goal.

Re: The Future of AI

#39

Post by irickt »

trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries' old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth.

Nietzsche.

On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense https://web.archive.org/web/20180625190456/http://oregonstat...

Re: The Future of AI

#40

Post by Lerc »

0x3f wrote: post #5
trilogic wrote: post #4

>How do we know which information was ground truth? No One knows that´s the point. Is truth a constant or a personal definition! From the begining of times to now, no One knows. Don´t forget, 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? And they continue life like that is normal. Start there then you understand that "AI" or how I call it "Collective Organized Concentr…

> 8 billion people wake up every morning never questioning why are they here, why are they born? People question this all the time

I'd be prepared to accept 7 billion don't.
Post reply on HN