161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t. – Margaret Thatcher
Or: "Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king." - Tywin Lannister
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end game, a "non-safe" superinteligence seems easier to create, so like any other technology, some people will create it (even if just because they can't make it safe). And in a world with multiple superintelligent agents, how can the safe ones "win"? It seems like a safe AI is at inherent disadvantage for survival.
The current intelligences of the world (us) have organized their civilization in a way that the conforming members of society are the norm and criminals the outcasts. Certainly not a perfect system, but something along those lines for the most part. I like to think AGIs will decide to do that too.
Enough said...
Given that GenAI is a statistical approach from which intelligence does not emerge as ample experience proves, does this new company plan to take a more human approach to simulating intelligence instead?
SSI, a very interesting name for a company advancing AI! "Solid State Intelligence" or SSI was also the name of the malevolent entity described in the biography of John C. Lilly [0][1]. It was a network of "computers" (computation-capable solid state systems) that was first engineered by humans and then developed into something autonomous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly [1] http://johnclilly.com/
What exactly is "safe" in this context, can someone give me an eli5? If it's "taking over the world" safe, does it not mean that this is a part of AGI?