191–199 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual Turing Test is a party game like Werewolf. If the humans are skilled then they should be able to authenticate by picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on. This would be a very difficult game to build a computer opponent for and nobody really tries.
> picking a subject that the AI can’t compete on Isn’t that the point? If there are no more such subjects then the AI reached humans level cognition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, thats the definition of closed loop vehicle control. Driving, at least in the way humans do it, is more then that. We have internal sim running in our head that allows us to deal with conditions that we have never seen before.
The internal state is simply part of the input. Your brain holds a finite amount of information, your sensors add a finite amount of information, your brain decides on which muscles to move in which way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly an absolute necessity. But also, if FSD 12 is truly end to end, nothing is preventing it from learning that as well.
Is it optional? if you see a car zig zagging, or a car is going in the wrong direction, or there's a driving school sign, etc. As a human you can tell something is going on.
Whenever I am trying to figure what is true and/or good for me, there are some people who want to help me and others who want to help themselves (sell me cigarettes, negative sum politics, etc). This is the battle where AGI seems spooky - eventually people are not able to tell which way is up. We should consider the OODA loop of a person's self-determination separately from the menial tasks a person undertakes to mak…
Do you believe this is new? It seems to me to just be another iteration of dealing with uncertain information: our neighbors may lie, our leaders may lie, newspaper may lie, radio may lie, TV may lie, blogs may lie, social networks may lie, pictures are photoshopped, videos are deepfaked.. At each iteration we had some problems but we adapted, it's one thing we're good at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why UBI gets discussed so often at the same time as AGI/ASI. If we're all redundant, how do we live? On a pension that starts at ${debatable from conception to adulthood}. Who provides the production on which the pension is spent? The AI. Even assuming UBI is great (small scale tests say so, but have necessary limits so we can't be sure), there's going to be a huge mess with most attempts to roll out such a h…
Assuming AGI doesn't kill us all, I would imagine the argument for UBI will become much easier to defend once it causes 100x, 1000x, 10000x etc growth in the economy. Our job is mostly to hang on until one of those two outcomes occurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not really about "get rich", its about giving people the ability to bypass the middleman for pretty much anything that they rely on.
The "middleman" being other people, i.e. themselves from another's perspective. "These other people are useless, let's bypass them. But not me! I simply gain the ability to get anything I want." The lack of second-order thinking is hilarious.
However, once automation actually starts progressing, without "evil" parties trying to rent seek/get rich, the cost of living will essentially become zero. There is a very real future where the only economies that exist are those that appeal to human emotional side - entertainment, sports, concerts, e.t.c. Everything else is subsidized by the government with tax collected on the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real issue is that we live in an economic system where people are exploited for labor, and in turn they buy products and services made with their own labor (and another class get to profit from it). If we introduce AGI but keep the system, people will be unemployed. If people aren't employed (and instead machines do their jobs), then they can't buy stuff. The whole system crumbles. But it's possible that AGI will…
Assume the existence of a large scale Star Trek Replicator that can almost instantly create anything. There are only two possibilities that result: 1) We now live in a post-scarcity society where everyone self-actualizes and no one wants for anything. 2) We now live in a society where the small % of the population that owns the Replicators self-actualizes and wants for nothing while the remaining 99.9% of the populat…
While we can get to a post scarcity society where people can live for free without a job, there are still going to be economies around "liberal arts". You cant realistically say "hey replicator, give me a usb filled with music that I like". You would have to find out which music you like, and random search on this is not really enjoyable, which would then means that there is economic opportunity for discovery, e.t.c.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with FSD systems as they are implemented today is that they aren't AI as much as just complex control algorithms. You can only go so far with mapping sequences of world snapshots to control actions. I do think that once we start to investigate ML/AI structure in the direction of figuring out the correct solution rather than trying to just find functions for control algorithms based on input->output mappings…
This is not true. The most advanced systems in the industry today like Waymo, Cruise, Baidu, Pony.AI, and Tesla, are all primarily AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Steam power, electrification, computers - all of these things had huge, measurable impacts on the amount of economic output vs input. Well... maybe not computers, which seems relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox#IT_unprod...
Ha, I was thinking of that when I typed it. I agree though - I think many of the AGI boosters on HN would be very surprised by how little economic productivity increased thanks to computers and the Internet.
Thus, in some market segments, it's possible for real productivity to increase without having a significant impact on economically measured output.