Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t need to be super to do that — even bacteria are a type of von-Neuman machine that can turn us into more of themselves. An ASI could convince you that turning yourself into a paperclip is a fun and exciting new opportunity to liberate you from $PERSONAL_PAIN and finally allow you freedom to engage in $PERSONAL_FANTASY.
Bacteria are self-limiting. Their offspring compete and they don't reshape their environment to be more friendly to their existence. They don't plan for space colonization either. They're a bit of a toy model for a maximizer, not the real threat of an intelligent, self-modifying maximizer.
Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
141–147 of 147 posts
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
They expected that American fascism would be based upon Evangelical Christianity and neoconservative foreign interventionism, not racially-focused and xenophobic nationalism and paleoconservative isolationism.
Well, I mean it sure borrows clothes from Evangelical Christianity, even if they aren't holding the reins.
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think the author literally believe corporations are AGIs In the video questions section he confirms he means literal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3172&v=RmIgJ64z6... Look at HN as an AI, you can ask a very complex question and get a very complex answer, it's AGI. 4chan can send humans out to do its real world physical bidding. It can literally get people shot. These are very complex AI's.
> Look at HN as an AI Look as a Human as an AGI, oh wait sorry, words have meanings and neither a Human or multiple humans satisfy the definition of AGI. > 4chan can send humans out to do its real world physical bidding. It can literally get people shot. 4chan can't satsify the definition of AGI though, guess we found it's fatal flaw. > These are very complex AI's. Only if you take AI to mean whatever you want it to…
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one went right over your head.
No, I don't think so. I think my response went right over yours. The comment is trying to mirror my criticism - "I read the first part, found an error, and stopped". My response is trying to highlight that, in fact, their response does not mirror mine because I had actual errors that I pointed out that motivated me to stop reading, whereas that comment did not (apparently). In other words, if I had actually made subs…
(like I said, it was mostly in jest, so don't take it too seriously, please)
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you follow Charlie's reasoning, that simpler parts, can't lead to a highly advanced intelligence, you come to conclusion intelligence is derived from a divine soul. Thats an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. Asserting that our current "simple parts" are still very far from AGI is nowhere even close to asserting that intelligence is immaterial. Its very, very obvious that there are myriad possible leaps we mi…
> Thats an absolutely ridiculous interpretation. Asserting that our current "simple parts" are still very far from AGI is nowhere even close to asserting that intelligence is immaterial. Not really what it says. Look at following passage: > AI singularity as a narrative, and identify the numerous places in the story where the phrase "... and then a miracle happens" occurs, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that they…
Equivalently, when he says a miracle happens, it is not the same thing as saying "miraculous intervention is required to endow programs with intelligence". He is saying that current and near-term machine learning techniques are not capable of scaling exponentially self-accelerating, godlike, incomprehensible superintelligence, not that no program ever can reach intelligence.
> There is nothing miracle about something that rose multiple number of times.
It is ridiculous to imply he believes that based on his statements or even just that passage in isolation. That would ignore -and take for granted as true- the many assumptions required for a singularity-like event besides the ability to create artificial intelligence. These include:
1. That our techniques are anywhere near reaching the general intelligence of a human
2.That that intelligence can be capably run on existing hardware, which presumes cognition does not rely significantly on processes happening within neurons, only between them
3. That the intelligence of a human, given the understanding of itself and ability to modify itself, would be capable of making improvements that would compound to a significant degree; if you presume intelligence takes off exponentially then unless you're already smart its hard to add much more
4. That intelligence isn't effectively limited by single threaded performance
5. That the ability to think can unlock all the wonders of the universe, and simply being sufficiently smart will allow you to infer the tremendous amounts of hidden state and randomness that dictate life.
If any of those extremely reasonable things fail, the singularity takes millions of years or is simply impossible. Expecting the singularity within the next millenia isn't just faith in all the above, it's faith that all the above is so true that the process happens in less than a decade. It is fanatical.
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
@ALittleLight: “.. One was the idea that the author could rule out the singularity ..” Your consciousness uploaded and then downloaded into a synthetic human like body isn't ever going to be you. As the man said “transhumanism is a warmed-over Christian heresy”.
Why would it not be you? If I replace a single one of your neurons with a mechanical replacement, are you still you? What if I replace half? All? If you walk across a room, are you still you? What if I break you down, and reassemble you at the other side of the room, using the same atoms? What if I only use half the original atoms? What if I freeze you, move you across the room, and then dethaw you?
I'm not likely to have the same reactions after lunch that I had before lunch, or consistency from yesterday to today.
Re: Dude, You Broke the Future (2017)
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally do. Plenty of legal and regulatory constructs apply only to corporations. Limited liability is a thing that is available by forming a corporation, as is carrying out an SEC filing and selling stock. A corporation can also survive, as a legal construct, the deaths of all founding members.
Those constructs are part of the modern, legal features of corporations, but they are not the essential nature of what corporations are. Remove those features, and things would change a lot, but you'd still have 'corporations' of a kind. Corporations are also not primarily profit driven - the owners may are - but corporations themselves 'do things' which will result in a lot of externalities and surpluses generated e…
Maybe, but the corporations of concern to the public in most countries today are those with the problematic "modern legal features".