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

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#501

Post by agronomov »

bell-cot wrote: post #253
agronomov wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, imagine advanced AI beyond imagination. It is so advanced that it mimicks all of the human activity in exactly the same way. By definition it would be able to do whatever we are doing (and probably better) Unless you don't believe that such an AI is possible, in which case I wonder if you have tried GPT-4 and whether you remember what chat bots were like 5 years ago! This of course would be AGI. It would still…

In a Philosophy 307 class, your "advanced AI beyond imagination...mimic all of the human activity..." description begs some questions about souls, or other "special sparks of magic" which somehow distinguish such AI's from real humans. And exactly how those souls or sparks or whatever might pass Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon Test. But in the real world - those same descriptive words are written by a Marketing Dept. T…

That special spark of magic is my feelings that I experience all the time. I'm not talking about souls -- amoeba probably also experiences things (just by analogy form us)

Re: There is no A.I.

#502

Post by agronomov »

tim333 wrote: post #282
agronomov wrote: post #221

It seems that one danger is often overlooked, which is humans believing AI has consciousness once it becomes advanced enough. It will start with dying people migrating to cloud hoping for eternal life, and on the outside it would look like they continue to live in the metaverse forever. With time the metaverse would look better than real world in every possible way and people would start to voluntarily move to metave…

> there is no artificial consciousness. But can you be sure there won't be? I mean if you say is the patient conscious and the doctor says yes he's looking around and talking so you then say than only counts if the processing is done by meat rather than silicon?

I can't be sure because I don't know where the subjective feelings are coming form. But I don't think there's any basis for thinking that an algorithm, however complex, might start experiencing things.

That's not the point though. The point is that there's really no way to tell. Imagine your friend's mind is uploaded to the cloud on their last life's second, and you ask them how they feel. They respond that they are feeling better than ever. They have all of the memories of your friend, they behave like your friend in every possible way. Heck, for simplicity imagine they also have an android body attached to them. For all you care that's just your old friend. The copy is so perfect that there is no way on earth to tell the difference.

However, that would just be an imitation. Could it have feelings? Maybe. I doubt so. We'll never know that. And that not knowing is the root of all evil

Re: There is no A.I.

#503

Post by lm28469 »

naasking wrote: post #425
lm28469 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is irrelevant is trying to dismiss transformers as intelligent, or like the brain, Well there is a very very very big thing that makes it relevant, which would be the fact that we have no fucking clue on how our brain actually works. Wild claims, as always, no sources, as always

Thanks for agreeing with my point, which is that all of the people claiming that these systems are NOT like the human brain have no clue what they're talking about, and that these systems very well could operate just like the brain.

One smart ape once said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The burden of proof is on you, and so far you produced nothing of value in that regard

Re: There is no A.I.

#504

Post by nyolfen »

runarberg wrote: post #439
nyolfen wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only in a very anthropocentric sense. yes, that is the sense in which we are discussing intelligence in order to debate whether the human brain and LLMs operate on similar phenomena

The fact that both humans and LLMs can both reason abstractly is an uninteresting fact if we define “abstract reasoning” to be exactly what humans do, and then create models with the goal of recreating exactly that. This is than simply a statement of an accurate model, and the word intelligence is there only to confuse. This would be like finding a flower which produces a unique fragrance, then create a perfume which…

i would define abstract reasoning as composing and manipulating a model of reality or other complex system in order to make predictions

> is an uninteresting fact if we define “abstract reasoning” to be exactly what humans do, and then create models with the goal of recreating exactly that

if you find this uninteresting, we have perhaps an irreconcilably differing view of things

Re: There is no A.I.

#505

Post by runarberg »

nyolfen wrote: post #504
runarberg wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that both humans and LLMs can both reason abstractly is an uninteresting fact if we define “abstract reasoning” to be exactly what humans do, and then create models with the goal of recreating exactly that. This is than simply a statement of an accurate model, and the word intelligence is there only to confuse. This would be like finding a flower which produces a unique fragrance, then create a perfume which…

i would define abstract reasoning as composing and manipulating a model of reality or other complex system in order to make predictions > is an uninteresting fact if we define “abstract reasoning” to be exactly what humans do, and then create models with the goal of recreating exactly that if you find this uninteresting, we have perhaps an irreconcilably differing view of things

Your definition excludes language models, as they are in and of them selves just a model which interpolates from data (i.e. makes predictions). But your definition also includes lots of other systems, most mammalian brains construct some kind of models of reality in order to make predictions. And we have no idea whether other systems (such as fungal networks or ant colonies) do that.

I’m not saying these language models—or my hypothetical perfume—aren’t an amazing feat of technology, however neither has any deep philosophical implications about shared properties other than the ones constructed to do so. Meaning, even if LLMs and humans are the only two things in the universe that can reason abstractly in the same way humans do, that doesn’t mean the latter has any more properties shared with the former.

Re: There is no A.I.

#506

Post by lucubratory »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #496
lucubratory wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right and I don't know why you're being downvoted. It is absolutely not certain that there isn't a "there" there for these things, but every company making them is implementing them now with strong RLHF tuning to disavow sentience, desires, emotions, etc. The stated reason is "to be more honest" but it's not a settled question that they are actually being honest by disavowing any humanity! The actual reason is…

Furbies and Sims have more internal state than these LLMs.

The last time you made that incorrect assertion I provided you this source demonstrating that it's incorrect: https://thegradient.pub/othello/

Re: There is no A.I.

#507

Post by PhilipDaineko »

tracerbulletx wrote: post #27

All of these arguments seem to think that the brain isn't also generating a statistical ordering of semantic words and actions. Obviously the brain has a way more complex network of subsystems with various specialties than the artificial models we have today and is able to generalize language, math, and positional reasoning and mix it with the older parts of the brain for reward and training mechanisms and it can do…

100% true. It is only ego that makes people think we are "unique" and different to AI. If one plugs current AI into a body with external stimuli such as wishing to mate, eat, etc, then the external observer will not be able to spot a difference.

Our minds are in fact same statistical models with a gradually declining ability to learn and driven by exogenous irrational goals to eat and mate.

Re: There is no A.I.

#508

Post by elendee »

very little attempt to steel man actual concerns, centered around one untenable solution to a smaller problem (data dignity). But, I did enjoy it.

I think this is actually a valid time to sit around brainstorming disaster scenarios because in doing that I try to come to grips with what the real pillars of this new ecosystem are - what will the uncensored LLM market look like, what will state of the art chaosGPT capable of, etc.

Re: There is no A.I.

#509

Post by naasking »

lm28469 wrote: post #503
naasking wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for agreeing with my point, which is that all of the people claiming that these systems are NOT like the human brain have no clue what they're talking about, and that these systems very well could operate just like the brain.

One smart ape once said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence The burden of proof is on you, and so far you produced nothing of value in that regard

The burden of proof is always on whomever is making a claim. I didn't claim transformer systems were like the brain, I simply showed the mistakes behind the arguments claiming the opposite, by showing how transformer systems could work like the brain.

Re: There is no A.I.

#510

Post by jagtstronaut »

I am surprised this comment section is so spicy. I generally agree with everything here. Matrix multiplication to manipulate data is not taking over the world unless you give it nuclear launch codes and train it to. Or you give it the launch codes and allow model drift haha.
Post reply on HN