3 ms·

I don't think 'not being surprised by the output' matters. I'm imagining future AI researchers reassuring their lab technicians: 'Ah, yes, the robot will screa

I don't think 'not being surprised by the output' matters. I'm imagining future AI researchers reassuring their lab technicians: 'Ah, yes, the robot will scream and beg for mercy when you threaten to shut it off - that's just a consequence of the learning model, pay no attention to it.' What I'm actually concerned about is that 'thinking' might not be as complicated as we assume. It might just be making weighted choices based on prior input after all. And when you make a system that makes weighted choices based on prior input, you might assume 'well, it's just a basic ML system, so I know it's not capable of thinking. Therefore, whatever I see, no matter how sophisticated, must be a result of our system, which only looks like the result of thinking.'.

TrapLord_Rhodo 4y ago
> 'Ah, yes, the robot will scream and beg for mercy when you threaten to shut it off - that's just a consequence of the learning model, pay no attention to it.' hahaha, this almost made me fall out of my chair. How an AI would actually convince us? honestly, this transcript is not too short of that.
fsckboy 4y ago
> It might just be making weighted choices based on prior input after all we can agree that humans think, and thinking is what humans do, but the prior inputs that a thinking human has will not be replicable by a machine unless we raise one with all sorts of sensory inputs from infancy. And that one would just be an alpha test. Just as computers can out floating-point us or play chess, we might create all sorts of wondrous conversational interactions with them, including them making jokes about stepping barefoot on a LEGO--owwww, zomg!!! But it can't be said they get that joke because they don't know how to think about it.