141–150 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re not getting AGI anytime soon…
What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.
So what's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The effects are well understood. Are they all understood? Sure, it seems like a rational suggestion, and we know that if we add it to the atmosphere it should cool, but what other effects will it cause? How many times have we tried this trick where we introduce something new to an environment and it doesn't turn out like we'd like it to? Feels like we're hoping to apply a band-aid but not deal with the wound.
First of all, the SO2 goes into the stratosphere , not the atmosphere. We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.
Considering that the stratosphere is part of the atmosphere, that's both pedantic and incorrect.
> We know a lot about it because volcanoes do this occasionally. Temperatures cool down for about 2 years, which is how long it takes for the S02 to break down.
Volcano's don't pump pure SO2. Yes, the science may be entirely valid, and it's not for me decide, but I think it warrants heavy consideration before we try to solve problems we're creating due to adding excess by adding additional excess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self consciousness. Human-level of reasoning. Feelings, etc. We are NOT close to AGI. * Fancy Markov chain (LLM) is not AGI. * Stable diffusion style of image generation is NOT AGI. * Fancy computer vision is NOT AGI. Honestly, I don't think we are any closer to AGI. What we are seeing is the peak of "fancy tricks" for computer generated artifacts.
Aren't we all just performing probablistic decision paths in our own minds? Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?
Wild speculation. The human brain is still pretty much a black box.
> Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?
Hard to tell, since we haven't observed any cases of sentient A.I. (able to feel). The only general intelligence we know (humans) have feelings as one of the most prominent features, so much so that "accuracy" is not the main driver for any given human... far from it. I don't know of any human that couldn't in one way or another be classified as "irrational".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.
ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, b…
Just like ELIZA can be said to be faking it, ChatGPT is faking it in a different way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self consciousness. Human-level of reasoning. Feelings, etc. We are NOT close to AGI. * Fancy Markov chain (LLM) is not AGI. * Stable diffusion style of image generation is NOT AGI. * Fancy computer vision is NOT AGI. Honestly, I don't think we are any closer to AGI. What we are seeing is the peak of "fancy tricks" for computer generated artifacts.
Aren't we all just performing probablistic decision paths in our own minds? Would "feelings" improve decision accuracy in artificial systems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.
ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps these rapid advancements are an indication that we've been visited by, or are currently under the guidance of, a significantly more advanced civilization. /s
Or that the advanced civilization holding us down has left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm impressed the replies to this manage to turn your celebration of several positive possible developments into a doomsday discussion.
There's a mental model that many people have which is rooted in negativism. I believe it's a form of intellectual laziness who's roots lie in self-consciousness. Meaning, that some people project internal feelings of inadequacy onto the external world. And I understand the temptation there - if I'm not competing well at a game, the immediate tendency is to blame the game (I stink at golf -> golf is stupid). One of th…
I was there when the foundations for the enshitification of the internet were laid. And there were a bunch of people complaining about the people complaining about taking a beat to decide how this will play out. Well, we were so eager to get to the future and here we are.
Lots of naive and goal obsessed people who thought if you build it, they will come. If you chop the last two minutes off of that movie, it is a very dark and different story. Only the miracle at the end saves it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is your definition of a AGI? Because we’re already passing the Turing test, and so I have to wonder if this isn’t just moving the goalposts.
ChatGPT (instruction tuned autoregressive language models) indeed already seems quite general (it's good at conversation Turing tests without faking it like ELIZA), even if the absolute intelligence is limited. Level of generality and intelligence is not the same. Something could be quite narrow but very intelligent (AlphaGo) or quite general but dumb overall (small kid, insect). Okay, ChatGPT is only text-to-text, b…
AGI was the result of people using the older term "AI" for things that hadn't turned out to be what we thought AI was going to be.
Like alot of technology terms, all of this has its orgins in science fiction, when AI was supposed to be the equivalent of a human mind, but constructed out of something other than meat. The AI would have agency, it would do things... and do them because it wanted to. It would have goals, that it might fail or succeed at. And it would learn... a proper AI might be constructed to know nothing about a particular subject, but it could then go on to learn (on its own without any outside help) all about that topic. Perhaps even to the point of conducting its own original research to learn more. A sufficiently intelligent AI would go on to learn things no human had ever learned, to invent and theorize inventions and theories no human had conceived of.
But then we all realized that intelligence might be severable from those other parts, and we might have an "oracle" that when asked questions could provide sensible answers, but would have no agency. That wouldn't be able to learn in any real way, but since it already knew the sensible answers, that didn't matter.
And at that point, you see AGI start being used. And I assumed it meant "well, that is what we'll call Asimov's robots, or Skynet, or whatever".
Except, here you are again using AGI to mean the dumb oracles that aren't intelligent in any meaningful way.
Like, wtf.