231–240 of 524 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has no body, metabolism or reproductive capability. It's a process, not an entity.
Being a process doesn't preclude something from being an entity. In particular, all of us living organisms have our constituent atoms constantly replaced, and we don't typically consider that a risk to our sense of self.
E.g. all "atoms" of a glider in Conway's Life get replaced every couple turns but an observer can tell it is still a glider because it keeps the shape, and it the same glider because it continues it's previous state.
This makes AI not quite alive because it's missing the continuity.
Another CEO with AI psychosis [1]. LLMs are not true AI, they lack common sense (or whatever it's properly called). LLM-based systems still need somebody with deep domain knowledge at the wheel to keep them from doing stupid things. It's like an alien-made bicycle that gets you to the speed of sound if you are an Olympic cyclist. Still, LLMs are extremely powerful pseudo-AI [2] and will bring a pseudo-singularity. Bu…
But the financial situation is that running a single AI agent costs significantly less than you'd have to pay a human to do the same task.
And I don't see what you're getting from The Chinese Room - that thought experiment relies on there being no external difference at all, right?
Humanity hasn’t been ready for the current ignorance explosion.
Oh we’ve been ready and it’s been known. We’re just too stupid to do anything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With incessant advances in robotics, how long would that continue to be the case? Should we start preparing for something that could be world-changing in the next 10-20 years?
When I graduated a bit over 10 years ago some people were saying we'd have a permanent mars bases by now. When my parents graduated they were told they'd retire at 45 and have 3 days work week due to "automation", they're still working at 60+ today, more than back then actually People should open history books and gain some political/historical culture, this thread is 90% wishful thinking and "if the lines continues…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that AI can't any ambitions? Today's systems are mostly good at following instructions. But push them far enough, and you already get weirdness like alignment faking, instrumental self-preservation and more. We know because we've seen it in lab settings, while probing for extreme failure modes on purpose - but the world is large and strange enough that edge cases like that are liable to surface n…
Current AI systems have started to do things without ever being prompted for anything at all?
- Prompted as in prompt made of tokens -> for LLMs, tokens double as a clock signal. Time only flows when tokens are pushed through them.
- Prompted as in specific request placed in the stream of tokens -> Yeah, they do that all the time whether it's getting into infinite loops of repeating same pattern, or suddenly deciding to do things based on inputs they normally ignored.
Also don't forget that everything is a "prompt" for LLM. All input tokens end up in the same place.
We don't need to live "side by side" with AI. AI is not alive, it's a technology we use. This is like talking about living side by side with your toaster.
Unless you watched Battlestar Galactica. Toasters are nice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Alive" is irrelevant Alive is always relevant. Our moral consideration must place beings that are alive or processes that support the life on this planet above things which are not alive. In a just world, it must be adapted to us. It’s merely a file sitting on disk with numbers in it. And to put a fine point on it: the ambitions of the wealthy people who make it must be adapted to us.
Then according to your argument, the moral consideration only depends on the moral agent, right? So if tomorrow AIs decide that they are alive, it would be morally incumbent upon them to adapt the world to support themselves, correct?
The only system of morality that applies to LLMs is their effect on us and the planet. Don’t anthropomorphize a matrix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, I don't believe it is a any more crazy believe than all of the other religions. But practitioners there might have a bit more respect for existing things and not mindlessly crush because they can, so I actually like the concept a bit. But I assume it can also set foundation for some exhausting debates .. "can we really move that random rock to build a house with?" but as far as I understood the practica…
> ...I don't believe it is a any more crazy believe than all of the other religions. And it's certainly not any more crazy than walking around with these small, addictive devices in our pockets that we rely on for navigation, information, entertainment, social connection.