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

91–100 of 405 posts

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#91

Post by simonsarris »

ACCount37 wrote: post #74
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 don't get how you can see one of those CLI coding tools in action and still parrot the "no agency" line. The goal-oriented behavior is rather obvious. Sure, they aren't very good at agentic behavior yet, and the time horizon is pretty low. But that keeps improving with each frontier release.

Well, the goal-oriented behavior of the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile is even more obvious. It might even have a higher success rate than CLI coding tools. But it's not helpful to claim it has any agency.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#92

Post by snovymgodym »

alansaber wrote: post #26
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…

Perhaps the AGI people thinking we can catch up millions of years of evolution in a handful of years

The same "millions of years of evolution" resulted in both intelligent humans and brainless jellyfish.

Evolution isn't an intentional force that's gradually pushing organisms towards higher and higher intelligence. Evolution maximizes reproducing before dying - that's it.

Sure, it usually results in organisms adapting to their environment over time and often has emergent second-order effects, but at its core it's a dirt-simple process.

Evolution isn't driven to create intelligence any more so than erosion is driven to create specific rock formations.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#93

Post by lo_zamoyski »

ACCount37 wrote: post #74
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 don't get how you can see one of those CLI coding tools in action and still parrot the "no agency" line. The goal-oriented behavior is rather obvious. Sure, they aren't very good at agentic behavior yet, and the time horizon is pretty low. But that keeps improving with each frontier release.

> The goal-oriented behavior is rather obvious.

Obvious? Is an illusion obviously the real thing?

There is nothing substantially different in LLMs from any other run of the mill algorithm or software.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#94

Post by bravetraveler »

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 dismiss it much like I dismiss ideas such as "Ketamine for Breakfast for All". Attainable, sure, but I don't like where it goes.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#95

Post by otikik »

jasonm23 wrote: post #84
otikik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the narrative tries to make it about the tools. "AI is going to take all the jobs". Instead of: "Rich guys will try to delete a bunch of jobs using AI in order to get even more rich".

I thought anyone with awareness of what the AI landscape is at the moment, sees those two statements as the same.

Well it tells you who's narrative it is, if nothing else.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#96

Post by masfuerte »

runjake wrote: post #49
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…

100%. Except the things that kill most of us[1] keeps me up at night. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/does-the-news-reflect-what-we-die...

I'm more concerned with the ways that other people can kill me than with the ways they kill themselves.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#97

Post by graemep »

whycombinetor wrote: post #41
graemep wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Has this guy not heard of the Bengal tigers of the Sundarban forests, which kill ~50 humans per year? How many tigers have been killed by humans? How many would be killed if humans did not restrain each other from killing tigers because we have killed so many that they are endangered. That population could be entirely wiped out by humans in the area. Mosquitoes kill far more people than tigers. So do venomous snake…

This isn't about what humans have done at other times or in other places. The author wrote "At any time, in any location, under any circumstances", so the statement can be proven false with one single counterexample - e.g. a lone human without a firearm encountering a tiger in the Indian Sundarbans.

I interpreted that as hyperbole.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#98

Post by theredleft »

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…

this is because you didn't take liberal arts seriously

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#99

Post by jncfhnb »

Jensson wrote: post #68
jncfhnb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could make AGI right now tbh. It’s not a function of intelligence. It’s just a function of stateful system mechanics. LLMs are just a big matrix. But what about a four line of code loop that looks like: ```while true: update_sensory_inputs() narrate_response() update_emotional_state() ``` LLMs don’t experience continuous time and they don’t have an explicit decision making framework for having any agency…

> ```while true: update_sensory_inputs() narrate_response() update_emotional_state() ``` You don't think that has already been made?

Sure, probably, to varying levels of implementation details.

Re: You are the scariest monster in the woods

#100

Post by cmiller1 »

jasonm23 wrote: post #84
otikik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the narrative tries to make it about the tools. "AI is going to take all the jobs". Instead of: "Rich guys will try to delete a bunch of jobs using AI in order to get even more rich".

I thought anyone with awareness of what the AI landscape is at the moment, sees those two statements as the same.

One implies "we should regulate AI" and the other implies "we should regulate the wealthy"
Post reply on HN