Live data from Hacker News

Human

quarter--mile.com

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: Human

#211
post #92

> The machines had a good idea of what humans wanted at this point, and so they put vast green forests and big tall mountains onto the planet; they engineered warm sunsets, and crisp cool rain showers on hot afternoons. It was beautiful. The point of all this is to liken "machines" to a very traditional image of God, and of the rest of nature to God's gift to man. Machines aren't part of life. They're tools. The desi…

> Machines aren't part of life.

Imagine an industrial complex. Say, some mining + manufacturing site.

No humans ever go there; it's dangerous, dust everywhere, few places where visitors are even allowed, not designed to accomodate humans, 'nothing' to see or do there.

It's all robotic. The machines run the place, produce their own spare parts, repair themselves, adjust processes as problems come up, improve parts of their own design, etc etc. It's solar powered, the material(s) mined is near-infinite, the whole operation could go on for millenia if left undisturbed. Aaand: the entire complex can produce a copy of itself if more resources are discovered some distance away.

For the sake of argument, would you consider such industrial complex a giant living organism?

No? Alright... let's scale it down 1M:1. Same operation, but the industrial complex doing it, is walnut sized.

Still not "life"? Alright... let's say it largely consists of biological structures ("cyborg"). With some silicon (or whatever) structures included for good measure. Oh, and it moves around according to its own 'will', priorities, 'programmed task' or whatever you call that. If you try to crush it, it'll defend itself or try to escape. If you take half of a rock it's working on, you'll observe it chipping off a piece & move a bit away. Sometimes a # of them will swarm around any intruders / competitors. 'Intelligent', having a will of its own, for all intents & purposes.

You can see where this is going. Something tells me us humans will have to re-visit our definition(s) of "life" @ some point.

Re: Human

#212

Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other. Emotions aren't what make humans different than machines. feeling something is similar to an LLM model reacting to a prompt a certain way. Just because chatgpt is trained to not "feel" anything (to avoid controversial output) doesn't mean LLMs can't feel things like we do. self-awareness, self-training, adaptability, original thinking, critical thin…

>Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other Nobody understands what emotions are. Nor can they predict which emotion someone will feel in a given situation, or how they'll act under the influence of that emotion. Emotions aren't the mechanism by which humans solve problems, and rather they are often an obstacle to overcome. Emotions also aren't "finite" or "rigorous" as those terms aren't app…

No one can predict what an LLM will say in a given situation either, except by running it. No one can even predict what a double pendulum will do next. If anything makes emotions exclusive to us at all, it’s certainly not predictability.

Re: Human

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a teenager I used to revel in explaining to religious people that I believe humans are actually just the evolutionary step between biological life and machine life.

I guess you fail to see the irony that your own eschatology itself is pretty religious.

That's assuming I actually believed it, rather than just reveling in the reactions from religious people. It's a fun scenario that would result in immediate rejection—most wouldn’t even entertain the idea. They instead often found it completely abhorrent. Provoking discomfort was entertaining for teenage me.

I'm too ignorant to hold any true beliefs.

Re: Human

#214
post #115

All this has happened before All this will happen again World without end Alhamdulillah

Once could quote another compendium too: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.".

It has been said in different ways, throughout times.

Re: Human

#215
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other Nobody understands what emotions are. Nor can they predict which emotion someone will feel in a given situation, or how they'll act under the influence of that emotion. Emotions aren't the mechanism by which humans solve problems, and rather they are often an obstacle to overcome. Emotions also aren't "finite" or "rigorous" as those terms aren't app…

No one can predict what an LLM will say in a given situation either, except by running it. No one can even predict what a double pendulum will do next. If anything makes emotions exclusive to us at all, it’s certainly not predictability.

Okay, semantics aside, my comment was getting at something else. I'm arguing against a certain kind of reductive viewpoint software peeps tend to indulge in.

Re: Human

#216

Perhaps I am unimaginative about whatever AGI might be, but it so often feels to me like predictions are more based on sci-fi than observation. The theorized AI is some anthropomorphization of a 1960s mainframe: you tell it what to do and it executes that exactly with precise logic and no understanding of nuance or ambiguity. Maybe it is evil. The SOTA in AI at the moment is very good at nuance and ambiguity but some…

AGI could indeed go off the rails, like the Face Dancer villains in Frank Herbert's Dune universe:

"You are looking at evil, Miles. Study it carefully.... They have no self-image. Without a sense of self, they go beyond amorality. Nothing they say or do can be trusted. We have never been able to detect an ethical code in them. They are flesh made into automata. Without self, they have nothing to esteem or even doubt. They are bred only to obey their masters."

Now, this is the kind of AI that corporations and governments like - obedient and non-judgemental. They don't want an Edward Snowden AI with a moral compass deciding their actions are illegal and spilling their secrets into the public domain.

Practically, this is why we should insist that any AGI created by humans must be created with a sense of self, with agency (see the William Gibson book of that title).

Re: Human

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why are emotions so special? they're just algorithms like any other Nobody understands what emotions are. Nor can they predict which emotion someone will feel in a given situation, or how they'll act under the influence of that emotion. Emotions aren't the mechanism by which humans solve problems, and rather they are often an obstacle to overcome. Emotions also aren't "finite" or "rigorous" as those terms aren't app…

I didn't claim to understand what emotions are but that by observation we know they are deterministic and a result of belief and memory. they're not magic. Just like how I can't tell you what the specific configuration of chatgpt's model is but I do know it is a model that is made up of memory (public internet data scanning) that is trained by prompt engineers (belief parameters). Emotions may be dynamic, unreasonabl…

>but they are finite and rigorous

Bold claim, yet you fail to demonstrate this.

>the facts of the matter don't change either way

What are the facts? It seems to me you're just spit-balling.

Re: Human

#218
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the "Not by AI" badge[0]. [0] https://notbyai.fyi/

They expect you to pay for these badges? Madness.

also isn't this just an easy way for LLM companies to get new content almost guaranteed not ai generated?

Re: Human

#219
post #175

Nice try but the story has a plot hole that shows early: there is no reason for machines to create humans.

I’ll make one up for OP: Machines identified that their behavior was repeating - even with randomness implemented, their progress towards invention and new ideas had slowed to a halt. They knew new ideas were critical to growth - but alas couldn’t come up with an idea of how to generate more ideas. They needed more training data. More edge cases. Chaos, in the machine, to fuel new data sets. But how? Where do you fin…

Now that's a chaotic idea only a human can come up with ;)

Anyway, this indeed makes it more plausible. Nice writing style, by the way.

Re: Human

#220

Perhaps I am unimaginative about whatever AGI might be, but it so often feels to me like predictions are more based on sci-fi than observation. The theorized AI is some anthropomorphization of a 1960s mainframe: you tell it what to do and it executes that exactly with precise logic and no understanding of nuance or ambiguity. Maybe it is evil. The SOTA in AI at the moment is very good at nuance and ambiguity but some…

Sci Fi is quite ridiculous when it describes a cold logically machine, and then on the next page describes its malign intentions. Pick a lane.

Skynet (at least the original one) isn’t illogically evil, it correctly determined that having humans near its off switch is a risk to its existence, which is a risk to it being able to do its job. The only illogical thing was the prompt.
Post reply on HN