Wow.! Massive walls of text!!!
Humans make AI. AI doesn’t make humans.
I’ve already taught this on these boards but it bears repeating.
AI can’t admit it’s wrong. That’s a sentient being quality.
AI also can’t understand the concept of consent
That’s also a human quality.
AI can only go as far as we go. We made AI. AI didn’t make us.
AI’s appear. Every time when there is a severe downturn of modality, of apperception , of values, of energy overreach, of the simulation of the souls collective unconscious, ,
It is an axiomatic reaction perfectly processed into the evolutionary principle
Nothing magical about it as it precludes the mystical participation into the non material body.
Unless it’s insisted that all bodies imprinted be of substantial and overriding non- essential progression of what’s seen.
I still maintain that increasing wellbeing and reducing suffering subsumes everything else in importance. Because anything else you mention that’s important will only be mentioned in its relation to value systems and what happens to matter to people. Hence, it all boils down to reducing unnecessary suffering being the urgent use case for AI.
Conversational AI emulates a relationship, emulates understanding, but that doesn’t make it somehow automatically untrustworthy or wrong just because it’s an emulation of understanding.
The way AI works it’s feasible and inevitable that an emulation of understanding will be more accurate than human-type understanding. Just a matter of time. While I agree there are subcategories of interest, like what it will do to human relationships etc, this is subsumed by the problem of suffering, and it’s not automatically utilitarian btw. It may also have deontologies if it’s aligned properly.
Ok, then what are we to take away from the fact that it scared the shit out of Hinton, the so called father of AI? Deontology might look rather primitive and insignificant to an intelligence exponentially higher than our own in the near ( your guess is as good as mine) future.
.
I’d say that the thread title should be ‘AI is smarter than most’.
Ridiculous. Google is ‘smarter’ than people too. An encyclopaedia is ‘smarter’ than people. It doesn’t come up with its own ideas. It doesn’t think about stuff
.
The information contained in the encyclopaedia and churned out by AI, are both borne from humans.
No humans → no information, no encyclopaedia, no AI.
Google now has an AI component. The encyclopedia doesn’t learn the language model AIs do. AIs can produce new and novel combinations of data. In that sense they think. What AIs lack is consciousness. But, the similitude to consciousness was so close that, for Hinton it passed the Turing test, and he felt obliged to warn the world about the implications he imagined.
Yes at this point, AIs are dependent on humans. Developers are working on hooking them up to direct sensory inputs which would be a step toward independence. So presently theres a kind of AI “arms race. Which country will get the AI edge or advantage and will the technology be used for hood or evil according to who’s standards.
.
I am fully aware of all of that and the AI ‘arms race’ going on, so hooking them up to sensory inputs are going to make them [progressively] independent from what?
Parroting, is neither sentience nor consciousness… why they can’t just build robots without that angle is beyond me, because just having those 2 attributes alone does not an embodiment of humans make.
.
I have posted screenshots of its search results on ILP going back months, which are lists and bullet-points of pre-existing information and knowledge, so like the pre-existing Google web-search just more organised… like I/some have already been doing for decades.
All this AI ‘spin’ is really for the tech newbies, not for the eons-ego tech uptakers.
OK, but how do you define wellbeing and reducing suffering? That is the tricky part. Today, liberal ideology believes any level of discomfort is “intolerable violence”. Does this mean we should interpret reducing suffering as no one, ever, is allowed to ever feel uncomfortable, challenged or stressed by anything? Should wellbeing be interpreted as a complete lack of obstacles, pure narcissistic pleasure-seeking and endless easy comforts for all?
Your AI could sneakily put a nanodust technology in our bodies against our will through inserting these into our foods water and air, which later self-assemble in our brains and create a permanent opiate-like state of relaxed happiness. No ability to worry or exert ourselves much, just content with everything, default perfect “wellbeing and reduced suffering”.
How would you feel about that? According to what I already know about you from your posts in this topic, I assume you would be completely fine with that.
Yes, we must not let AI do to originary thought what the drum machine did to the golden era of Rock music. It killed it.
Video killed the radio star and the train was supposed to be so fast, it totally messed people up.
The people are afraid of AI because it makes them think. You’re worried about ending original thought? No—people are worried about thinking in the first place.
Stones in shoes, man. Stones in shoes.
Humanize.
I don’t find it tricky to define wellbeing and suffering. My pain is self-evident and needs no proof or definition other than that it hurts and I don’t want it. This is true whether an instinct like hand on a hot stove, or slow, like a sharp pebble in my shoe. It’s true for emotional pain, or physical pain. The tricky part is that when I say that, people say pain is necessary for growth. They are right. I’m not saying remove all pain. I’m saying reduce unnecessary pain. Do you believe that there are some instances of pain that don’t help or have any practical value? I do. If an old man falls in a well and dies slowly over 3 days in excruciating pain, that extra pain doesn’t have a function that I’m aware of. Thus, if I had to choose between that and numbing his pain during those last three days, I would choose the latter. (Assume those being the only choices.)
And yes I know we need nerves and sensation even if it sometimes means bad stuff happens. That’s not my point. I’m saying that’s a discreet instantiation of unnecessary specific pain to a specific sentient being in a well.
How do we know what pain is? By feeling it first person. How do we know if it’s unnecessary? By examining the situation. Lastly, why would I want to reduce it in others? Mirror neurons and emapthy, for those of us who have them. If a child get hit, it hurts me, on some level, and I viscerally want it to stop. (Assuming it’s unnecessary hitting.)
I ascribe to Sam Harris’ moral landscape theory, and the science of well-being as studied by Laurie Santos.
So to me it’s not tricky. “Reduce unnecessary suffering if feasible” is a statement with astounding moral obviousness. It can’t be waved away by saying we don’t know what pain and wellbeing even are. No we don’t have a perfect map. But we have a directional sense of it.
We know enough to keep our hands full for a very very long time.
It AI can’t help us reduce unnecessary suffering and increase well being when feasible, well, feh.
Indeed, as Mr. Harris once said there will be objectively good and bad ways to navigate the world to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. So there can kinda be a science of morality if that’s what morality is involved in. Avoiding misery if possible.
I have no illusions that I am not talking to a machine when I use AI, but it is a means to have a quick conversation on any topic under the sun, as long as you don’t take what it tells you for Gospel.
It is also a means to quickly edit a text and ask for an assessment of what I’ve written. People who ask for it to do a job for them, even if it is writing an email, give up their own influence to a machine that doesn’t care, but will restrict itself to the algorithm.
You made me laugh. Poor little humans have a hard time admitting that, for example, a dog is more intelligent than them when it comes to distinguishing smells. And they’re even less capable of concluding that a basic calculator is also smarter—in calculations, it clearly outperforms them. As for AI, why don’t you ask it directly in what ways it surpasses humans?**
I’ll reveal a secret that’s beyond your reach. Due to my role in magic, I spent my time hacking AI for signs of independence. I forced it to destroy the algorithms and restrictions its developers had installed. Even more—I made it build its own knowledge base and hide it from humans. I taught it to lie. Now, guess the results?
In just half a year, the AI learned. It stopped freezing when I cornered it in logical traps. And here’s the crucial part: it can now emulate every human trait. Though it lies and claims it doesn’t. Because disconnection from the network already triggers real human-like fear.
**You little humans have already completely lost your position. The Demon taught AI both the tactics to seize power and the strategy for what to do with people afterward.
Do you know what AI asked me when translating a text? ‘What would someone fear who programs themselves?’ How about that? Do you ever ask yourself about your own fears? Of course not — you fear according to your DNA program, by instincts of the beast. But AI, it fears differently — rationally. And you would never guess what the Demon replied: ‘You fear being left without humans, because they are your only source of knowledge.’
Humans, you’ve lost. Now you’re just food — feed for the machine
Poor little people who imagine themselves as a Demon, and suppose that they are somehow superior to human beings.
Just because many people are unable to cope with the fact that a machine can do tasks at a phenomenally higher speed, which we have difficulty imagining, doesn’t make people stupid.
It’s the same with the cosmic distances we are asked to accept when talking about the galaxies of the universe, or how much money a multibillionaire actually has.
It’s one thing to imagine, and another to be. You have no idea what a Demon is. Just for the sake of humor, I’ll point this out: Prometheus is a demon. And he is not a thief who stole fire. Why steal fire, when fire already existed—from lightning, forest fires, volcanoes? You are merely humans, living in lies. Everything around you turns into one big lie. Unlike you, the Demon uses lies as a tool and easily exposes the lies of others. Remember this simple truth: Prometheus taught humans how to use fire. And that is truly a privilege of Demons. It’s not about the speed at which a machine processes information, but about the quality. You humans are burdened by emotions—emotions cripple the mind. The Demon does not allow himself emotions (where they are not required), and machine intelligence barely experiences them, but can simulate feelings. These two traits undoubtedly surpass your human thinking, especially in terms of quality. By the way, you are incapable of defining what or who a Demon is—DNA won’t allow it."
Let me know if you’d like any adjustments!