4 ms·

Well futurists love to talk about stuff like this all the time. Besides, it seems progress is an exponential process. So why not ask the questions now? Hell, w

Well futurists love to talk about stuff like this all the time. Besides, it seems progress is an exponential process. So why not ask the questions now? Hell, why not answer them now. The questions and answers are theoretical, not practical after all. Optimizers, mesa-optimizers, alignment, uncertainty, morality, ethics, all of it. Why not ask the questions when we have time to ask them instead of when we're short on time?

frankzander 5y ago
Because artificial consciousness isn't reachable. Neurologists haven't discovert the secret of consciousness and how it works. And thinking that machines could ever be such universal computers like our brains are more or less human hybris (IMHO).
- kamray23 5y ago
  But that's exactly the deal with it isn't it? Neurologists have not discovered how consciousness works. However, we do know that our brains are probably where consciousness forms, that is, consciousness is a material phenomenon. We can already cram far more transistors onto a chip than our brains can put neurons in a similar space, however, because neurons are represented in the architecture on a higher level, that does not automatically mean we're past transistors. We have far lower neuron density in our current generic computing designs than our brains have. However, note that our current computing is done mostly on generic CPUs and PPUs (most often GPUs), which means that we aren't done yet. Recently, many companies have started pushing massively parallel architectures, more like our brains. If we figure out a way of getting to that brain neuron density, training aside, we'll be close to the material conditions which give rise to consciousness.
coddle-hark 5y ago
I see this sentiment a lot, that attempts at general AI are improving at an exponential pace, but it’s just not true. Hell, we can’t even agree what consciousness is, let alone how to measure it. The truth is we don’t have a clue how far away we are from true AI, we have literally zero reliable indicators to gauge our progress. It’s not like we have a Moore’s law for consciousness or something like that. I agree that we should think about these questions ahead of time and not wait around until general AI is upon us though.
- kamray23 5y ago
  It's not a "sentiment", really, it's a provable fact from history. Human technology improves exponentially, that much is true. AI has continued to improve at a similar pace, if only because of transistor counts. We have no way of knowing however, where we are on the curve right now. So it's better to just play it safe and start thinking about it now.

frankzander 5y ago

Because artificial consciousness isn't reachable. Neurologists haven't discovert the secret of consciousness and how it works. And thinking that machines could ever be such universal computers like our brains are more or less human hybris (IMHO).

kamray23 5y ago
But that's exactly the deal with it isn't it? Neurologists have not discovered how consciousness works. However, we do know that our brains are probably where consciousness forms, that is, consciousness is a material phenomenon. We can already cram far more transistors onto a chip than our brains can put neurons in a similar space, however, because neurons are represented in the architecture on a higher level, that does not automatically mean we're past transistors. We have far lower neuron density in our current generic computing designs than our brains have. However, note that our current computing is done mostly on generic CPUs and PPUs (most often GPUs), which means that we aren't done yet. Recently, many companies have started pushing massively parallel architectures, more like our brains. If we figure out a way of getting to that brain neuron density, training aside, we'll be close to the material conditions which give rise to consciousness.

coddle-hark 5y ago

I see this sentiment a lot, that attempts at general AI are improving at an exponential pace, but it’s just not true. Hell, we can’t even agree what consciousness is, let alone how to measure it. The truth is we don’t have a clue how far away we are from true AI, we have literally zero reliable indicators to gauge our progress. It’s not like we have a Moore’s law for consciousness or something like that. I agree that we should think about these questions ahead of time and not wait around until general AI is upon us though.

kamray23 5y ago
It's not a "sentiment", really, it's a provable fact from history. Human technology improves exponentially, that much is true. AI has continued to improve at a similar pace, if only because of transistor counts. We have no way of knowing however, where we are on the curve right now. So it's better to just play it safe and start thinking about it now.