5 ms·

this is a wonderful race: as the machines become more human, the humans are forced to introspect and double down on what it means to be human. One could almost

by swyx 4y ago

this is a wonderful race: as the machines become more human, the humans are forced to introspect and double down on what it means to be human. One could almost call it the human race. (ba dum tss) I've had my own problems with proving my own humanity[0]. With this AI wave, I also took a stab at enumerating what machines/AI can't do: https://lspace.swyx.io/p/agi-hard https://lspace.swyx.io/p/agi-hard - Empathy and Theory of Mind (building up an accurate mental model of conversational participants, what they know and how they react) - Understand the meaning of art rather than the content of art - Physics and Conceptual intuition Another related paper readers might like is Melanie Mitchell's Why AI is Harder than We Think: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.12871.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.12871.pdf (sidenote, always love Maggie's illustrations, it is a real super in a world of text and ai art) 0: https://www.swyx.io/proving-our-humanity https://www.swyx.io/proving-our-humanity

soco 4y ago
Do humans understand the meaning of art? Of modern art? Regular humans? Other than the author?
- 12tvende 4y ago
  not sure about the meaning, which would imply there'd by an answer to what meaning a certain art peace would give. But a human being will have their own reaction to a peace of art. For example I've often heard said that great art is something which makes you feel something. A machine cannot feel
  - soco 4y ago
    Do we actually know the other human feels that something? We don't, because we only hear them pretending they feel and usually believe them. Well, a machine could pretend just the same - they have enough training data to know what feeling is appropriate to claim.
    - Garlef 4y ago
      Also: The feelings humans have are also influenced by their culture. Feelings are not only felt but also enacted. And the enactment influences the feeling. The final scene of midsommar is a great illustration of this.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Once I realised I had aphantasia (I don't see things in my "minds eye"), in my 40's, after having my whole life assumed people who said things like "visualise X" meant it abstractly or metaphorically rather than literally, it really drove home how little most of us understand about the inner mental processes of other people. Even more so seeing people express total disbelief when I explain my aphantasia, or when others point out they don't have an inner monologue or dialogue. Most people have far less understanding of other peoples inner life than they believe they do (and I have come to assume that applies to myself too - being aware that the experience is more different than I thought just barely scratches the surface of understanding it).
    - verisimi 4y ago
      Yes. Ultimately this is a question of meaning. Where is meaning to be found? It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. We can't know how other human beings feel, nor can we know whether machines can feel. However, it is a safe bet (to me) that other humans are like me (more or less). And that machinery is inanimate, regardless of appearances. But then you will get attempts to anthropomorphise machines, eg giving AI citizenship (as per Sofia in the UAE). What is missed with this sort of anthropomorphising is what is actually occurring: the denigration of what it is to be human and to have meaning. A simulacrum is, by definition, not the thing-in-itself, but for nefarious reasons, this line will be heavily blurred. Imo.
      - soco 4y ago
        We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a magpie when decorating their nests? Even fishes do decorations to attract mates, so their mates definitely draw some meaning from those actions. Now if you define "meaning" as something only humans can draw then okay machines won't have that meaning - although we both agreed each human will draw a different meaning anyway. This of course also excludes any sentient aliens from drawing meanings from human art, because well they are not humans. And that we humans will never understand a fish's art because we are not fishes. So meaning is both individual, and species-related? Or either? Which one is now the real meaning, the one the individual draws (then species is not relevant, so why not including machines) or the one the species draws (then it's also a group meaning, so again why not including machines)? Or maybe your corner stone argument is "machinery is inanimate" - which would be another discussion by itself...
- potta_coffee 4y ago
  Post-modern consensus is that there is no meaning.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    That sounds like nihilism with extra steps.
    - potta_coffee 4y ago
      I agree. I'm not a nihilist but that's the logical conclusion of the dominant philosophical position.
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
As I say in this blog post [1], we are the ones becoming more computerized and limiting ourselves of expressing our humanity through digital means. There is no race to become more human, just close the computer and go outside and an AI will never be able to compete with you in that regard. [1] : https://but-her-flies.bearblog.dev/humans-arent-text/ https://but-her-flies.bearblog.dev/humans-arent-text/
- PodWaver 4y ago
  I really like this post. Few months ago I've read a book that really made me finally get a word for what I think we both see happening. it's from a book called Seeing Like a State, and the word is over-abstraction. If you want to know what this is. Imagine a forest with all of it's unpredictable branches, grazing animals, various species of leaves growing from the ground. Now over-abstraction is when you make a plot of monoculture on which not even insects roam and conclude that's plantlife. And I kinda realize that's something that we humans do to other people too. We've mind ourselves kinda predictable and boring because how we express and think by ourselves is in these boxed in, unecessarily fixed, ways. I feel AI is kinda an outgrouth of that too. Since in many ways what makes software AI instead of regular software is how little control you have over it. Not really what it does. AI worries me though, not because I believe it will be intelligent or sentient or whatever anytime soon. But because it cuts people who do important work from money. Which means there's a high chance we'll be poorer off if we don't do something about it in the near future.
- quotemstr 4y ago
  > go outside and an AI will never be able to compete with you in that regard. Why not? > humans aren't text Was Helen Keller human?
hinkley 4y ago
Appreciation of the complexity of the natural world.
jacquesm 4y ago
Re. your list: plenty of people have problems with those.
- ynniv 4y ago
  I frequently point out that $ThingWeSayIsntAi isn't as good at something as a person who is good at it, but it is rapidly becoming better than a person who isn't good at it. Coming from decades of systems pretending to be remotely competent, this is a striking inflection point. The Times recently cooked a Thanksgiving dinner based on ChatGPT recipes. It wasn't very good, and they closed by saying "I guess we still have jobs!" People don't grock exponential growth.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The fact that we are still litigating whether authorities responded too lax, adequately or too harsh three years after the start of the COVID pandemic is proof positive that you are 100% right. It's interesting how fast this development is going but I fear that with all of the other stuff going on in the world and the fact that we have barely managed to get a grip on what it means to have a free of charge pipe between a very large fraction of the world population, that we are in for a very rough ride. The various SF writers that addressed the singularity were on the money with respect to our inability to adapt, they were too pessimistic about the timetable. The ramp-up is here, whether we like it or not and the only means that we have at our disposal to limit the impact a bit is the rulebook. But then it's a huge game of prisoners dilemma, the first one to defect stands a good chance of winning the pot. One more thing that can help: the same tool that gives can take away: AI can help to figure out which art/text/music was generated by AI and which by a human. Someone else in another thread earlier on HN made the comparison between pre-AI and post-AI art that it is like Low Background Steel (I can dig up the reference if you want), and I think that's really on the money, everything that we made prior to the emergence of generative AI is going to be valued much more than anything that came after unless it is accompanied by a 'making of' video. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32561868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32561868
RHSman2 4y ago
It is the shitest race ever. Utterly pointless.
- BizarroLand 4y ago
  Sounds like depression talking. Not everything is shit, but if everything smells like shit, check your shoes. I mean that in a charitable way. Small depressions can easily become large ones if they are allowed to run amok with your feelings.
  - RHSman2 4y ago
    HN person diagnosing depression. Well done. I’m far away from depression. Just think the AI race is absolutely a pile of shit for humanity.
    - BizarroLand 4y ago
      I wish you weren't another one of those people who respond to concern with hostility. It's so boring.
      - andrewflnr 4y ago
        Genuine concern doesn't respond to hostility by calling it "boring", even if it does stoop to the old "check your shoe" canard. Anyway, your whole basis for "concern" is that the person expressed a strong negative opinion. As evidence for depression, that's, ah, weak.
      - RHSman2 4y ago
        I am expressing my opinion and concern for this pointless race.
        neuronic 4y ago
        As an observer of your exchange of words, I would appreciate more reason behind the opinion because I would like to understand why you feel this way.

by swyx 4y ago

soco 4y ago

Do humans understand the meaning of art? Of modern art? Regular humans? Other than the author?

12tvende 4y ago
not sure about the meaning, which would imply there'd by an answer to what meaning a certain art peace would give. But a human being will have their own reaction to a peace of art. For example I've often heard said that great art is something which makes you feel something. A machine cannot feel
- soco 4y ago
  Do we actually know the other human feels that something? We don't, because we only hear them pretending they feel and usually believe them. Well, a machine could pretend just the same - they have enough training data to know what feeling is appropriate to claim.
  - Garlef 4y ago
    Also: The feelings humans have are also influenced by their culture. Feelings are not only felt but also enacted. And the enactment influences the feeling. The final scene of midsommar is a great illustration of this.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Once I realised I had aphantasia (I don't see things in my "minds eye"), in my 40's, after having my whole life assumed people who said things like "visualise X" meant it abstractly or metaphorically rather than literally, it really drove home how little most of us understand about the inner mental processes of other people. Even more so seeing people express total disbelief when I explain my aphantasia, or when others point out they don't have an inner monologue or dialogue. Most people have far less understanding of other peoples inner life than they believe they do (and I have come to assume that applies to myself too - being aware that the experience is more different than I thought just barely scratches the surface of understanding it).
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Yes. Ultimately this is a question of meaning. Where is meaning to be found? It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. We can't know how other human beings feel, nor can we know whether machines can feel. However, it is a safe bet (to me) that other humans are like me (more or less). And that machinery is inanimate, regardless of appearances. But then you will get attempts to anthropomorphise machines, eg giving AI citizenship (as per Sofia in the UAE). What is missed with this sort of anthropomorphising is what is actually occurring: the denigration of what it is to be human and to have meaning. A simulacrum is, by definition, not the thing-in-itself, but for nefarious reasons, this line will be heavily blurred. Imo.
    - soco 4y ago
      We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a magpie when decorating their nests? Even fishes do decorations to attract mates, so their mates definitely draw some meaning from those actions. Now if you define "meaning" as something only humans can draw then okay machines won't have that meaning - although we both agreed each human will draw a different meaning anyway. This of course also excludes any sentient aliens from drawing meanings from human art, because well they are not humans. And that we humans will never understand a fish's art because we are not fishes. So meaning is both individual, and species-related? Or either? Which one is now the real meaning, the one the individual draws (then species is not relevant, so why not including machines) or the one the species draws (then it's also a group meaning, so again why not including machines)? Or maybe your corner stone argument is "machinery is inanimate" - which would be another discussion by itself...
potta_coffee 4y ago
Post-modern consensus is that there is no meaning.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  That sounds like nihilism with extra steps.
  - potta_coffee 4y ago
    I agree. I'm not a nihilist but that's the logical conclusion of the dominant philosophical position.

AstixAndBelix 4y ago

As I say in this blog post [1], we are the ones becoming more computerized and limiting ourselves of expressing our humanity through digital means. There is no race to become more human, just close the computer and go outside and an AI will never be able to compete with you in that regard. [1] : https://but-her-flies.bearblog.dev/humans-arent-text/ https://but-her-flies.bearblog.dev/humans-arent-text/

PodWaver 4y ago
I really like this post. Few months ago I've read a book that really made me finally get a word for what I think we both see happening. it's from a book called Seeing Like a State, and the word is over-abstraction. If you want to know what this is. Imagine a forest with all of it's unpredictable branches, grazing animals, various species of leaves growing from the ground. Now over-abstraction is when you make a plot of monoculture on which not even insects roam and conclude that's plantlife. And I kinda realize that's something that we humans do to other people too. We've mind ourselves kinda predictable and boring because how we express and think by ourselves is in these boxed in, unecessarily fixed, ways. I feel AI is kinda an outgrouth of that too. Since in many ways what makes software AI instead of regular software is how little control you have over it. Not really what it does. AI worries me though, not because I believe it will be intelligent or sentient or whatever anytime soon. But because it cuts people who do important work from money. Which means there's a high chance we'll be poorer off if we don't do something about it in the near future.
quotemstr 4y ago
> go outside and an AI will never be able to compete with you in that regard. Why not? > humans aren't text Was Helen Keller human?

hinkley 4y ago

Appreciation of the complexity of the natural world.

jacquesm 4y ago

Re. your list: plenty of people have problems with those.

ynniv 4y ago
I frequently point out that $ThingWeSayIsntAi isn't as good at something as a person who is good at it, but it is rapidly becoming better than a person who isn't good at it. Coming from decades of systems pretending to be remotely competent, this is a striking inflection point. The Times recently cooked a Thanksgiving dinner based on ChatGPT recipes. It wasn't very good, and they closed by saying "I guess we still have jobs!" People don't grock exponential growth.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The fact that we are still litigating whether authorities responded too lax, adequately or too harsh three years after the start of the COVID pandemic is proof positive that you are 100% right. It's interesting how fast this development is going but I fear that with all of the other stuff going on in the world and the fact that we have barely managed to get a grip on what it means to have a free of charge pipe between a very large fraction of the world population, that we are in for a very rough ride. The various SF writers that addressed the singularity were on the money with respect to our inability to adapt, they were too pessimistic about the timetable. The ramp-up is here, whether we like it or not and the only means that we have at our disposal to limit the impact a bit is the rulebook. But then it's a huge game of prisoners dilemma, the first one to defect stands a good chance of winning the pot. One more thing that can help: the same tool that gives can take away: AI can help to figure out which art/text/music was generated by AI and which by a human. Someone else in another thread earlier on HN made the comparison between pre-AI and post-AI art that it is like Low Background Steel (I can dig up the reference if you want), and I think that's really on the money, everything that we made prior to the emergence of generative AI is going to be valued much more than anything that came after unless it is accompanied by a 'making of' video. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32561868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32561868

RHSman2 4y ago

It is the shitest race ever. Utterly pointless.

BizarroLand 4y ago
Sounds like depression talking. Not everything is shit, but if everything smells like shit, check your shoes. I mean that in a charitable way. Small depressions can easily become large ones if they are allowed to run amok with your feelings.
- RHSman2 4y ago
  HN person diagnosing depression. Well done. I’m far away from depression. Just think the AI race is absolutely a pile of shit for humanity.
  - BizarroLand 4y ago
    I wish you weren't another one of those people who respond to concern with hostility. It's so boring.
    - andrewflnr 4y ago
      Genuine concern doesn't respond to hostility by calling it "boring", even if it does stoop to the old "check your shoe" canard. Anyway, your whole basis for "concern" is that the person expressed a strong negative opinion. As evidence for depression, that's, ah, weak.
    - RHSman2 4y ago
      I am expressing my opinion and concern for this pointless race.
      - neuronic 4y ago
        As an observer of your exchange of words, I would appreciate more reason behind the opinion because I would like to understand why you feel this way.