4 ms·

It's an article on a psychology journal, those folk tend to use different ontologies than computer scientists. That said, it's a very substantial review and I d

by dsign 4y ago

It's an article on a psychology journal, those folk tend to use different ontologies than computer scientists. That said, it's a very substantial review and I don't necessarily disagree with it. No, causal reasoning won't fix it. But it is an ingredient more. I can't tell which ones are all the others, but the kind of thing that LLM do is already very close to the mindless repetition I did at kindergarten to get positive feedback. Scientists have also noted that animal intelligence, and by extension ours, tends to raise as a response to a challenging environment. Then there is the illusion of self-consciousness, the clearing-house of environmental and internal information that engenders our thoughts. It's like we have a stack of papers and we are searching a way to bind them together to make a book. I think we will eventually find a way and that will be AGI. What we will get won't be like us, but will pass all the tests. Now, is it just me, or is creating AGI stupidly irresponsibly?

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
> or is creating AGI stupidly irresponsibly Stupidly irresponsible and yet inevitable. It's just a question of if it's a democratic accessible model of AGI or a nation state that wields it like the atomic bomb shortly after WWII. That might be our best corollary for an utterly game changing technology with profound leverage.
- astrange 4y ago
  Nothing new about creating general intelligence. WWI and II were fought using general intelligences called soldiers which were mass-produced by defense technologies called mothers. (The difference between this and AGI is that you're imagining AGI has superpowers, but since it's your imagination just don't do that and now it's safe. Well, as safe as an army is, so not very.)
gitfan86 4y ago
The minute we created agriculture this day was inevitable. It is stupid that we created agriculture? That is a matter of opinion,but I would say no.
- dsign 4y ago
  It's not inevitable. We know how to create nuclear bombs, and generally how to kill each other. We are not doing either of those wantonly. And forgive me, but what agriculture has to do with AGI?
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    Not who you're asking but I do think that there's something interesting going on with human beings and organizational structures, such that agriculture is a type of Pandoras box that leads to increasing complexity of organization so long as the process isn't stopped (that is, that humans don't go extinct prematurely). I think the same applies to fire and energy; once fire is harnessed, if we go on indefinitely the desire to capture and use more energy leads to advancement over time and better energy utilization. I think that this process is tied in some way to cognition and computation as it occurs in the universe, I know it might sound hokey or whatever but I really do think something interesting is going on that we don't grasp because it's too big for our heads.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      Yes, it is fractals all the way down and up but we are too stupid to realize it.
mpweiher 4y ago
> the illusion of self-consciousness I've read and head that a lot, and it is appealing in many ways. However, I always ask myself: who is having that illusion?
- dboreham 4y ago
  Everyone.
  - asimovfan 4y ago
    Unless you are being sarcastic, i think the person was asking the "real" substance of the entity that is having a subjective experience.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      Particularly, having an illusion of consciousness would appear to require someone to actually have that illusion. And that someone would appear to be having a subjective experience, i.e. consciousness. So to me the whole idea of "consciousness is an illusion", while cute, solves nothing.
- jcims 4y ago
  This question always comes up for me when people talk about the simulation theory. What exactly is being simulated? All of my perceptions but my brain is real, or am I also being simulated?
  - dsign 4y ago
    It's not about simulation theory as in "we are living in a simulation," but about consciousness. My reasoning goes like this: - 'A' is a computing entity and an organism: it takes information in, it reacts. Its genes use those two functions to ensure survival. Note that A doesn't need to be conscious. - As environmental complexity raises, A must collaborate with other members of its own species (most likely, the same genes control the hardware) or of other species. Let's say B. - Evolution gives A the capability of partially simulating B ("other"), so that they can negotiate. Evolution also gives them the capability to communicate. Communication happens between members of the same species because they share the same set of genes. If B survives, the genes of A survive, even if A itself doesn't (abnegation). - The capabilities are somewhat loose. For example, there is not a restriction that A must be different from B. If A can simulate B/other, it an also simulate with B/other=A. The trick is very useful to strategize interaction ("plan"), and to cope with bigger groups. That process where our brains diverge and simulate an interior dialogue is what we perceive as consciousness. For example, as I write and edit this post, I'm actively imagining ('simulating') how peers from my species will interpret it, and my sentences are changing so that they are decoded by the path of least resistance in the reader, thus advancing my goals (actually my genes'). So, consciousness is an illusion that we can't escape in speech[^1], discourse or logic. It is what we are. And it is tremendously useful, because it allows us to "edit our future" to a great extent, with the implication that by doing so, we increase the chances of own survival or, if that's not possible, of our genes' survival. Now, that component is missing from our current AI iteration. Put simply, our artilects don't run continuously and don't have genes commanding them. They don't have an endocrine and nervous system constantly producing overriding signals ("hunger", "pain", "lust", "do so that the group survives") that must be rationalized a-posteriori to the point of forming entire cultures. The thing is, we could engineer entirely artificial replacements of those things, and with a bit of fussing, we would replicate the illusion of consciousness. But the idea of doing that and also binding our creations to do useful work is simply repulsive to me (edit: my genes are providing an overriding signal saying that, creating a being with the potential to inflict damage on me and my group (read: them the genes), is something that only deleterious members of the species would do, and that at the very least, dissuasive action should be taken). [^1]: We can shut it down however, it's not inherent. We routinely do when we sleep, and sometimes when we do something that requires more of our lower brain, for example doing intense physical exercise or having sex.

by dsign 4y ago

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago

> or is creating AGI stupidly irresponsibly Stupidly irresponsible and yet inevitable. It's just a question of if it's a democratic accessible model of AGI or a nation state that wields it like the atomic bomb shortly after WWII. That might be our best corollary for an utterly game changing technology with profound leverage.

astrange 4y ago
Nothing new about creating general intelligence. WWI and II were fought using general intelligences called soldiers which were mass-produced by defense technologies called mothers. (The difference between this and AGI is that you're imagining AGI has superpowers, but since it's your imagination just don't do that and now it's safe. Well, as safe as an army is, so not very.)

gitfan86 4y ago

The minute we created agriculture this day was inevitable. It is stupid that we created agriculture? That is a matter of opinion,but I would say no.

dsign 4y ago
It's not inevitable. We know how to create nuclear bombs, and generally how to kill each other. We are not doing either of those wantonly. And forgive me, but what agriculture has to do with AGI?
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  Not who you're asking but I do think that there's something interesting going on with human beings and organizational structures, such that agriculture is a type of Pandoras box that leads to increasing complexity of organization so long as the process isn't stopped (that is, that humans don't go extinct prematurely). I think the same applies to fire and energy; once fire is harnessed, if we go on indefinitely the desire to capture and use more energy leads to advancement over time and better energy utilization. I think that this process is tied in some way to cognition and computation as it occurs in the universe, I know it might sound hokey or whatever but I really do think something interesting is going on that we don't grasp because it's too big for our heads.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    Yes, it is fractals all the way down and up but we are too stupid to realize it.

mpweiher 4y ago

> the illusion of self-consciousness I've read and head that a lot, and it is appealing in many ways. However, I always ask myself: who is having that illusion?

dboreham 4y ago
Everyone.
- asimovfan 4y ago
  Unless you are being sarcastic, i think the person was asking the "real" substance of the entity that is having a subjective experience.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Particularly, having an illusion of consciousness would appear to require someone to actually have that illusion. And that someone would appear to be having a subjective experience, i.e. consciousness. So to me the whole idea of "consciousness is an illusion", while cute, solves nothing.
jcims 4y ago
This question always comes up for me when people talk about the simulation theory. What exactly is being simulated? All of my perceptions but my brain is real, or am I also being simulated?
- dsign 4y ago
  It's not about simulation theory as in "we are living in a simulation," but about consciousness. My reasoning goes like this: - 'A' is a computing entity and an organism: it takes information in, it reacts. Its genes use those two functions to ensure survival. Note that A doesn't need to be conscious. - As environmental complexity raises, A must collaborate with other members of its own species (most likely, the same genes control the hardware) or of other species. Let's say B. - Evolution gives A the capability of partially simulating B ("other"), so that they can negotiate. Evolution also gives them the capability to communicate. Communication happens between members of the same species because they share the same set of genes. If B survives, the genes of A survive, even if A itself doesn't (abnegation). - The capabilities are somewhat loose. For example, there is not a restriction that A must be different from B. If A can simulate B/other, it an also simulate with B/other=A. The trick is very useful to strategize interaction ("plan"), and to cope with bigger groups. That process where our brains diverge and simulate an interior dialogue is what we perceive as consciousness. For example, as I write and edit this post, I'm actively imagining ('simulating') how peers from my species will interpret it, and my sentences are changing so that they are decoded by the path of least resistance in the reader, thus advancing my goals (actually my genes'). So, consciousness is an illusion that we can't escape in speech[^1], discourse or logic. It is what we are. And it is tremendously useful, because it allows us to "edit our future" to a great extent, with the implication that by doing so, we increase the chances of own survival or, if that's not possible, of our genes' survival. Now, that component is missing from our current AI iteration. Put simply, our artilects don't run continuously and don't have genes commanding them. They don't have an endocrine and nervous system constantly producing overriding signals ("hunger", "pain", "lust", "do so that the group survives") that must be rationalized a-posteriori to the point of forming entire cultures. The thing is, we could engineer entirely artificial replacements of those things, and with a bit of fussing, we would replicate the illusion of consciousness. But the idea of doing that and also binding our creations to do useful work is simply repulsive to me (edit: my genes are providing an overriding signal saying that, creating a being with the potential to inflict damage on me and my group (read: them the genes), is something that only deleterious members of the species would do, and that at the very least, dissuasive action should be taken). [^1]: We can shut it down however, it's not inherent. We routinely do when we sleep, and sometimes when we do something that requires more of our lower brain, for example doing intense physical exercise or having sex.