3 ms·

Perhaps once a computer can understand context to the point of the human and produce a worthy set of opinions, we could automate the Hacker News comments sectio

Perhaps once a computer can understand context to the point of the human and produce a worthy set of opinions, we could automate the Hacker News comments section and save us all some time.

O_H_E 9y ago
And automate the readers and save the rest of the time Seriously: if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Karnickel 9y ago
  if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless Are you useless because other people write comments? What is the difference between it being a biological human and an artificial human - should we ever get that far? Apart from quality and relevance considerations I'm reminded of the situation where people open businesses that already exist, or people try to get jobs despite other people existing that are actually better. For example, why doesn't BMW stop producing cars, after all, there's Mercedes-Benz (and very close too), or vice versa. Or why is there yet another bakery. Or why do I try to get that programming job and don't even mind to admit that I'm probably not even among the best 1% of people for that particular job. Because none of that matters. My advantage in the last case is I'm here (interviewing) while those other people are not. Same with the bakery and the car makers. The existence of something else isn't a reason unless there is a direct impact. Even if we ever make something that is far more intelligent than us. Still no reason to expect that that new thing is going to murder each and everyone. We don't murder each and every creature that is orders of magnitude less intelligent than us (the extinction event that we started notwithstanding, that's a side effect because of limited space on the planet). We don't murder our own less intelligent members of society either. To extend on the last point, the real human intelligence is not as much in the individual members of this society - but in the network that we present. Place any human being alone in a remote region and see what they accomplish. They will actually die, most likely. The power of humanity is not the individuals, it's a huge invisible "cloud" of stuff: The knowledge, the "magic items" that were created by this "human cloud" over time (like a computer, or just a can of Coke [1]). Even if we created something that is an order of magnitude more intelligent than any human being, or even two - it's power (and intelligence!) pales compared to the combined network power of humanity. Don't look at "humanity" as a bunch of individual hairless mutated apes (i.e. the physical, biological beings), "humanity" is much, MUCH more, most of it invisible to the eye. Knowledge/culture, the way we interact in a gigantic network (like a brain - think of humans as neurons!), the tools and items we have. In this network there is plenty of room for new "nodes", and if they are truly intelligent they will value the network and - unlike most humans - recognize that their own individual abilities are tiny compared to being part of the whole thing. Another things is, when/if we can create things that are "better" than us we can also change ourselves. We can improve our bodies, our brains. We will integrate computers and brains, not have them (only) externally. So the humans that "compete" with some super-intelligent AI won't be the humans of today either. Also check out: [0] "Joseph Henrich: "The Secret of Our Success" | Talks at Google" https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c > Humans are a puzzling species. What has enabled us to dominate the globe, more than any other species, while remaining virtually helpless as lone individuals? Joseph Henrich's shows that the secret of our success lies not in our innate intelligence, but in our collective brains—on the ability of human groups to socially interconnect and learn from one another over generations. [1] "What Coke contains" https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d449929ef https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499... (it is not actually about Coke) > The number of individuals who know how to make a can of Coke is zero. The number of individual nations that could produce a can of Coke is zero... Invention and creation is something we are all in together. Modern tool chains are so long and complex that they bind us into one people and one planet. They are not only chains of tools, they are also chains of minds: local and foreign, ancient and modern, living and dead — the result of disparate invention and intelligence distributed over time and space. ...every can of Coke contains humanity’s choir.
- freehunter 9y ago
  >if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless False. That's actually my ideal vision of AI, a machine that produces a worthy set of opinions, which a human then chooses from and carries to implementation. To me sitting here at my computer, every person here on HN may as well be an opinion-generating bot. The value I get from reading your programmatically-generated comment is the epiphany that leads me to a breakthrough on what I'm working on. Because you, as a comment-writing robot, aren't working on my project. All you're doing is evaluating my work and making suggestions as to where to go next. A bot that's capable of coming up with its own opinions and then carrying them out is what may render us useless. A bot that tells a doctor what diagnosis to make and shows documentation to carry out treatment is valuable. A bot that makes the diagnosis then carries out the treatment itself with no human involvement is kinda scary.
  - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Even scarier: a bot that can make the diagnosis and could carry out the treatment itself, but is required by law to seek approval from a human of equivalent expertise. Let that happen, and eventually you get a situation where the human disagrees with a bot and the human does something different. The patient suffers or dies as a result of the bot’s decision being ignored. That’s when we start to lose our autonomy.

Perhaps once a computer can understand context to the point of the human and produce a worthy set of opinions, we could automate the Hacker News comments section and save us all some time.

O_H_E 9y ago

And automate the readers and save the rest of the time Seriously: if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Karnickel 9y ago
if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless Are you useless because other people write comments? What is the difference between it being a biological human and an artificial human - should we ever get that far? Apart from quality and relevance considerations I'm reminded of the situation where people open businesses that already exist, or people try to get jobs despite other people existing that are actually better. For example, why doesn't BMW stop producing cars, after all, there's Mercedes-Benz (and very close too), or vice versa. Or why is there yet another bakery. Or why do I try to get that programming job and don't even mind to admit that I'm probably not even among the best 1% of people for that particular job. Because none of that matters. My advantage in the last case is I'm here (interviewing) while those other people are not. Same with the bakery and the car makers. The existence of something else isn't a reason unless there is a direct impact. Even if we ever make something that is far more intelligent than us. Still no reason to expect that that new thing is going to murder each and everyone. We don't murder each and every creature that is orders of magnitude less intelligent than us (the extinction event that we started notwithstanding, that's a side effect because of limited space on the planet). We don't murder our own less intelligent members of society either. To extend on the last point, the real human intelligence is not as much in the individual members of this society - but in the network that we present. Place any human being alone in a remote region and see what they accomplish. They will actually die, most likely. The power of humanity is not the individuals, it's a huge invisible "cloud" of stuff: The knowledge, the "magic items" that were created by this "human cloud" over time (like a computer, or just a can of Coke [1]). Even if we created something that is an order of magnitude more intelligent than any human being, or even two - it's power (and intelligence!) pales compared to the combined network power of humanity. Don't look at "humanity" as a bunch of individual hairless mutated apes (i.e. the physical, biological beings), "humanity" is much, MUCH more, most of it invisible to the eye. Knowledge/culture, the way we interact in a gigantic network (like a brain - think of humans as neurons!), the tools and items we have. In this network there is plenty of room for new "nodes", and if they are truly intelligent they will value the network and - unlike most humans - recognize that their own individual abilities are tiny compared to being part of the whole thing. Another things is, when/if we can create things that are "better" than us we can also change ourselves. We can improve our bodies, our brains. We will integrate computers and brains, not have them (only) externally. So the humans that "compete" with some super-intelligent AI won't be the humans of today either. Also check out: [0] "Joseph Henrich: "The Secret of Our Success" | Talks at Google" https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c https://youtu.be/jaoQh6BoH3c > Humans are a puzzling species. What has enabled us to dominate the globe, more than any other species, while remaining virtually helpless as lone individuals? Joseph Henrich's shows that the secret of our success lies not in our innate intelligence, but in our collective brains—on the ability of human groups to socially interconnect and learn from one another over generations. [1] "What Coke contains" https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d449929ef https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499... (it is not actually about Coke) > The number of individuals who know how to make a can of Coke is zero. The number of individual nations that could produce a can of Coke is zero... Invention and creation is something we are all in together. Modern tool chains are so long and complex that they bind us into one people and one planet. They are not only chains of tools, they are also chains of minds: local and foreign, ancient and modern, living and dead — the result of disparate invention and intelligence distributed over time and space. ...every can of Coke contains humanity’s choir.
freehunter 9y ago
>if bots can produce 'worthy set of opinions' we would be totally useless False. That's actually my ideal vision of AI, a machine that produces a worthy set of opinions, which a human then chooses from and carries to implementation. To me sitting here at my computer, every person here on HN may as well be an opinion-generating bot. The value I get from reading your programmatically-generated comment is the epiphany that leads me to a breakthrough on what I'm working on. Because you, as a comment-writing robot, aren't working on my project. All you're doing is evaluating my work and making suggestions as to where to go next. A bot that's capable of coming up with its own opinions and then carrying them out is what may render us useless. A bot that tells a doctor what diagnosis to make and shows documentation to carry out treatment is valuable. A bot that makes the diagnosis then carries out the treatment itself with no human involvement is kinda scary.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Even scarier: a bot that can make the diagnosis and could carry out the treatment itself, but is required by law to seek approval from a human of equivalent expertise. Let that happen, and eventually you get a situation where the human disagrees with a bot and the human does something different. The patient suffers or dies as a result of the bot’s decision being ignored. That’s when we start to lose our autonomy.