Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#221

Post by doktrin »

deltaonefour wrote: post #219
danachow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect: lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things…

>All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. lol That's a long response. I was going to take the time to read it and respond. But once I read this garbage sentence I decided that I'm not going to read shit. You just wasted your time typing out a bunch of crap nobody is going to read.

[flagged]

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#222

Post by deltaonefour »

Bud wrote: post #220
deltaonefour wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis is logic. Certain attributes of philosophy make it ludicrous. Additionally the way philosophers formulate arguments brings the whole field into question. Philosophy is just a vocabulary word. It is a arbitrary word with a definition that is so general literally every academic field or school of thought on the face of the earth can fall under it's purview however ludicrous or legitimate. Literally, any form…

Ok, so that's obviously a no, then. You might want to learn something about a given topic before thinking you are informed enough to casually parody it. There are legitimate attacks on philosophy which are possible, but you don't seem to be finding any of them.

Do I need to become a Scientologist to know it's shit? No. Do I need to go to university to learn computer science? No.

There is PLENTY of information about philosophy on the internet.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Pretty thorough and there's enough information on that page to make a smart person scratch his head and think wtf. Additionally philosophy classes create bias. A charismatic teacher and intense study can lead to the psychological equivalent of indoctrination.

I go to read the wikipedia page or stanfords philosophy page with ZERO investment. And I leave with the same. No investment = No bias which is unlike you. You obviously have Bias and investment. You've never dispassionately examined the legitimacy of your own field given the amount of effort you invested in it. That is pure bias and I guarantee you, YOU are biased. Because even if philosophy is legitimate there ARE plenty of head scratchers that leads any unbiased person to at least question that legitimacy. Take a look at the wikipedia page. Art theory is part of philosophy. Art! and Logic! and Science! and Ethics! and Religion! And Aesthetics, And Confucianism! And Marxism. And the philosophy of math!

It's also divided by Country! Vietnamese Philosophy, African Philosophy, East Asian Philosophy. You should know unless you're asian I likely know more about East Asian philosophy stuff like Buddhism to a level much higher than you since I'm East Asian myself.

I can tell you East Asian Philosophy is utter bullshit. The fact that it's included under the branch of overall philosophy just shows there's a huge category problem here. It's like any attempt at deep thought is a philosophy, EVEN when that deep thought is incorrect and FALSE. Philosophy just justifies all this garbage by asking the question "What does it mean to be False?" Get out of here.

Look it's already pretty nutty how much philosophy encompasses and how diverse it is. Then when you go deeper into some of this stuff it becomes even more nutty.

Philosophy has a reputation for being an intelligent and mind bending field, but that's all it is... a reputation. Once you see past that, it's actually not much different then religion. Oh wait I can't say that because religion IS philosophy. Is there any comparison I can use in metaphor that isn't itself a philosophy? Probably not. Which is my point.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#223

Post by [deleted] »

deltaonefour wrote: post #219
danachow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect: lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things…

>All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. lol That's a long response. I was going to take the time to read it and respond. But once I read this garbage sentence I decided that I'm not going to read shit. You just wasted your time typing out a bunch of crap nobody is going to read.

[deleted]

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#224

Post by toponaut »

deltaonefour wrote: post #111
crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads like an appeal for more religious discrimination in science. Is that what you're saying?

Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.

"the discrimination makes factual sense."

I can't figure out what you mean. Examples?

You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate.

Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it.

Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#225

Post by Dylan16807 »

swid wrote: post #215
Dylan16807 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first stated belief was "the universe itself operates on mostly simple rules which can be simulated to high enough precision on hardware to approach what happens in the real world" If a simulation takes resources that are exponential in the number of particles then it fails that test. All the stars will die before you manage to calculate anything meaningful in your non-microscopic simulated world. There's a line…

For the record, I am consistent because I absolutely think it is not possible we live in a simulation, because the immense resources it would take to simulate the large, detailed, world we live in. I don’t think even the most advanced civilizations could build a computer that we live in. But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate…

> But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate why I think computers can contain human like intelligence in theory.

In what kind of theory, though?

In mathematical theory you can use a googol watts. In "things you can do in this universe" theory you can't use a googol watts.

I understand the argument of taking a small accurate simulation as a basis point and extrapolating to a larger simulation. But if you're stuck with exponential complexity, then that extrapolation doesn't work. The demonstration of simulating 5 particles becomes useless. Even if you can massively simplify it, if you can't eliminate the exponential cost you're screwed.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#226

Post by Bud »

deltaonefour wrote: post #222
Bud wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so that's obviously a no, then. You might want to learn something about a given topic before thinking you are informed enough to casually parody it. There are legitimate attacks on philosophy which are possible, but you don't seem to be finding any of them.

Do I need to become a Scientologist to know it's shit? No. Do I need to go to university to learn computer science? No. There is PLENTY of information about philosophy on the internet. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy Pretty thorough and there's enough information on that page to make a smart person scratch his head and think wtf. Additionally philosophy classes create bias. A charismatic teacher an…

Please don't even try to pretend, around intelligent people, that philosophy as a whole is remotely similar to Scientology. And again, please, educate yourself.

Also, you might want to refrain from assuming that philosophy is "my field", because that's laughably wrong. My field is music and tech. I took one (1) college philosophy course. You'd benefit from doing the same.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#227

Post by deltaonefour »

Bud wrote: post #226
deltaonefour wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I need to become a Scientologist to know it's shit? No. Do I need to go to university to learn computer science? No. There is PLENTY of information about philosophy on the internet. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy Pretty thorough and there's enough information on that page to make a smart person scratch his head and think wtf. Additionally philosophy classes create bias. A charismatic teacher an…

Please don't even try to pretend, around intelligent people, that philosophy as a whole is remotely similar to Scientology. And again, please, educate yourself. Also, you might want to refrain from assuming that philosophy is "my field", because that's laughably wrong. My field is music and tech. I took one (1) college philosophy course. You'd benefit from doing the same.

>I took one (1) college philosophy course.

One course is enough to generate bias. You actually studied the stuff to get an A. There's no avoiding indoctrination when you work that hard on it to get that high of a grade.

If you got a D and still worship philosophy then you have a legit argument here, but I'm absolutely positive you got an A given your "logic" is just telling me to take the class.

I'm pretty sure that class changed the way you view the world. This kind of catharsis happens in a lot of places after intense study of something, especially religious fundamentalists. Certain Christians study the bible for so long they reach this point of Catharsis, not realizing that it's just an illusion.

>Please don't even try to pretend, around intelligent people, that philosophy as a whole is remotely similar to Scientology.

Intelligent people? Where? Don't worry. In this thread, I haven't nor will I ever even communicate with an intelligent person.

Come back with an actual argument if you want to change my mind. It looks like you don't care though, so goodbye.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#228

Post by deltaonefour »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #210
deltaonefour wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's harder to see but you're the one being irrational here. First off I'm not claiming this evidence is definitive, it is only convincing and compelling. Anyway, lets examine your claim: >It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational. Your claim…

> Your claim is, given a conversation thread that appears to be between two sentient beings your claim is that one of these beings is not sentient and is only imitating sentience in a way that is indistinguishable from actual sentience. It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. > This…

>It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws.

Possible. But you would have to prove this because there's no evidence for what you say either. It's easy to get this evidence though. Just DO an actual probe of this chat bot and post the conversation.

>It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible.

Of course it's not worth the time. I'm just saying his claim is useless because it applies to every single conversation. It's like saying all words in the english language are composed of letters. The irrationality comes from the fact that such a statement is POINTLESS to say.

>Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log.

I never said it's good enough. I said it's convincing and compelling. Why? Because No previous chatbot could achieve this level of complexity.

Maybe a better way to put it is... previous chat logs with AI actually had evidence against sentience. This one doesn't. The needle moves forward not because it's proof, but it is one of the first chat logs that doesn't display disproof. That is quite compelling.

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#229

Post by swid »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #225
swid wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the record, I am consistent because I absolutely think it is not possible we live in a simulation, because the immense resources it would take to simulate the large, detailed, world we live in. I don’t think even the most advanced civilizations could build a computer that we live in. But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate…

> But this is different from if we can simulate some amount reality at all, which I think is possible, and I use that to demonstrate why I think computers can contain human like intelligence in theory. In what kind of theory, though? In mathematical theory you can use a googol watts. In "things you can do in this universe" theory you can't use a googol watts. I understand the argument of taking a small accurate simul…

I agree with most of what you are saying; it absolutely applies to physical questions. Whether or not quantum computing can be practical depends on our ability to fight off decoherence in more and more qubits.

But I'm more of a software guy, so it feels fair to ask if Turing completeness enough to simulate reality, and therefore human-like intelligence?

If so, what shortcuts can we take to avoid simulating "everything"?

Re: A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

#230

Post by deltaonefour »

toponaut wrote: post #224
deltaonefour wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.

"the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it. Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different direction…

I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias.

>Science and religion are both about our "best guesses".

No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true.

Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.

Post reply on HN