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

You are the scariest monster in the woods

jamie.ideasasylum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 405 posts

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#221

Post by j2kun »

woeirua wrote: post #44

There's this weird disconnect in tech circles, where everyone is deathly afraid of AGI, but totally asleep on the very real possibility of thermonuclear war breaking out in Europe or Asia over the next 10 years. There's already credible evidence that we came perilously close to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine which likely would've spiraled out of control. AGI might happen, but the threat of nuclear war…

> everyone is deathly afraid of AGI

I think this is a vast overstatement. A small group of influential people are deathly afraid of AGI, or at least using that as a pretext to raise funding.

But I agree that there are so many more things we should be deathly afraid of. Climate change tops my personal list as the biggest existential threat to humanity.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#222

Post by soiltype »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #78
myrmidon wrote: post #13

I struggle to understand how people can just dismiss the possibility of artificial intelligence. Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution-- why would it be impossible to achieve the exact same result in silicon, especially after we already demonstrated some parts of those results (e.g. use of language) that critically set us apart from other animals? I'm not buying the whole "AI has no agency" line eith…

I think you make a lot of assumptions that you should perhaps reexamine. > Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution-- why would it be impossible to achieve the exact same result in silicon, especially after we already demonstrated some parts of those results (e.g. use of language) that critically set us apart from other animals? Here are some of your assumptions: 1. Human intelligence is entirely explic…

I understand all the words you've used but I truly do not understand how they're supposed to be an argument against the GP post.

Before this unfolds into a much larger essay, should we not acknowledge one simple fact: that our best models of the universe indicate that our intelligence evolved in meat and that meat is just a type of matter. This is an assumption I'll stand on, and if you don't disagree, we need to back up.

Far too often, online debates such as this take the position that the most likely answer to a question should be discarded because it isn't fully proven. This is backwards. The most likely answer should be assumed to be probably true, a la Occam. Acknowledging other options is also correct, but assuming the most likely answer is wrong, without evidence, is simply contrarian for its own sake, not wisdom or science.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#223

Post by mediaman »

j2kun wrote: post #206
pennomi wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not an assumption, it’s a viable theory based on overwhelming evidence from fossil records. What’s NOT supported by evidence is an unknowable, untestable spiritual requirement for cognition.

What overwhelming evidence do fossil records provide about human cognition?

We don't need fossil records. We have a clear chain of evolved brain structures in today's living mammals. You'd have to invent some fantastical tale of how God is trying to trick us by putting such clearly connected brain structures in a series of animals that DNA provides clear links for an evolutionary path.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that God started the whole shebang (that is, the universe), because it's rather difficult to disprove, but looking at the biological weight of evidence that brain structures evolved over many different species and arguing that something magical happened with homo sapiens specifically is not an easy argument to make for someone with any faith in reason.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#224

Post by kazinator »

> Just like a hammer, sword, or a rifle lying on a ground is nothing to be feared, so too is AI.

AI is not just going to lie on the ground until someone picks it up to do harm.

An intelligent rifle with legs is something to be feared.

You cannot compare AI to inanimate objects under human control which have no agency. Especially not if you are bringing the imaginary AGI into the conversation.

The idea that AGI is just a hammer is absurd.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#225

Post by lurk2 »

pennomi wrote: post #200
theodorejb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution This is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps human cognition was created by God, and our minds have an essential spiritual component which cannot be reproduced by a purely physical machine.

It’s not an assumption, it’s a viable theory based on overwhelming evidence from fossil records. What’s NOT supported by evidence is an unknowable, untestable spiritual requirement for cognition.

> it’s a viable theory based on overwhelming evidence from fossil records

No one has gathered evidence of cognition from fossil records.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#226

Post by lurk2 »

soiltype wrote: post #204
theodorejb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution This is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps human cognition was created by God, and our minds have an essential spiritual component which cannot be reproduced by a purely physical machine.

It is completely unreasonable to assume our intelligence was not evolved, even if we acknowledge that an untestable magical process could be responsible. If the latter is true, it's not something we could ever actually know.

> If the latter is true, it's not something we could ever actually know.

That doesn’t follow.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#227

Post by Chance-Device »

omnicognate wrote: post #184
Chance-Device wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realise that this isn’t even a reply so much as a series of insults dressed up in formal language? Yes, of course you do.

It wasn't intended as an insult and I apologise if it comes across as such. It's easy to say things on the internet that we wouldn't say in person. It did come from a place of annoyance, after your middlebrow dismissal of Penrose' argument as "stupid".

And you do it again, you apologise while insulting me. When challenged you refuse to defend the points you brought up, so that you can pretend to be right rather than be proved wrong. Incompleteness theorem is where the idea came from, but you don’t want to discuss that, you just want to drop the name, condescend to people and run away.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#228

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #66
myrmidon wrote: post #13

I struggle to understand how people can just dismiss the possibility of artificial intelligence. Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution-- why would it be impossible to achieve the exact same result in silicon, especially after we already demonstrated some parts of those results (e.g. use of language) that critically set us apart from other animals? I'm not buying the whole "AI has no agency" line eith…

> Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution Well that's one reason you struggle to understand how it can be dismissed. I believe we were made by a creator. The idea that somehow nature "bruteforced" intelligence is completely nonsensical to me. So, for me, logically, humans being able to bruteforce true intelligence is equally nonsensical. But what the author is stating, and I completely agree with, is t…

I don't think that follows. God made lots of things that we can create facsimiles of, or even generate the real thing ourselves.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#229

Post by IncreasePosts »

theodorejb wrote: post #187
myrmidon wrote: post #13

I struggle to understand how people can just dismiss the possibility of artificial intelligence. Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution-- why would it be impossible to achieve the exact same result in silicon, especially after we already demonstrated some parts of those results (e.g. use of language) that critically set us apart from other animals? I'm not buying the whole "AI has no agency" line eith…

> Human cognition was basically bruteforced by evolution This is an assumption, not a fact. Perhaps human cognition was created by God, and our minds have an essential spiritual component which cannot be reproduced by a purely physical machine.

In that sense, what isn't an assumption?

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#230

Post by bilater »

I sort of agree, but I hate the premise of this article because it sneakily focuses only on the potential harm of human + AI collaboration, without acknowledging the good.

That said, I agree that human + AI can cause damage and it’s precisely why, from a game theory perspective, the right move is to go full steam ahead. Regulation only slows down the good actors.

Valhalla is within reach, but we have to leap across a massive chasm to get there. Perhaps the only way out of this is through: accelerating fast enough to mitigate the “mid-curve” disasters, such as population revolt due to mass inequality or cyberattacks caused by vulnerabilities in untested systems.

Post reply on HN