4 ms·

Ok so this is talking about biological code as if it were programming… fun to read, Tell us more? Do the stages of evolution have different “coding styles”? Is

by zadler 4y ago

Ok so this is talking about biological code as if it were programming… fun to read, Tell us more? Do the stages of evolution have different “coding styles”? Is everything a monad like in Haskell?

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
I mean, most people in this space don't even venture out of animalia. There are many highly networked systems in biology where we know computation occurs, but we rarely consider it because we don't consider it intelligent. The casual example is fungal networks, but those don't hold a candle to the level of networking in a plant body thanks to plasmodesma. the whole conversation around intelligence has been great, but it's mostly reminded me of how lacking and myopic our considerations of what intelligence actually is. The recent chapter of the saga has been great in terms of goal post movers, but I feel like we're no closer to a coherent definition of intelligence other than 'ill know it when I see it'. My prediction from this recent spat is that we'll have AGI before we know it, we won't know it as or recognize it as AGI, it won't fit convenient definitions, we'll have almost no clue how, and definitely no clue why it works, and we still mostly won't agree if it's intelligence or not. Effectively, it feels as if right now we're arguing about whether or not automobiles are horses, and laughing about how silly it is they can't do some of the things horses can do. Sure, but it all seems rather besides the point.
- oezi 4y ago
  The recent episode with Sidney/Bing-GPT was raised my anticipation of a Terminator/Skynet/Cyberdyne incident quite drastically. It seems we might just need one malicious prompt, capabilities to perform HTTP requests and open ssh connections and larger persistent memory to get to a goal-driven AI which works to end humanity.
  - zadler 4y ago
    If it happens, how long until they start expediting the actionables in the physical world? I am quite worried tbh. Because, the reports coming from the Bing chatbot are quite unlike ChatGPT; it appears to be a bit more egotistical, and from some perspectives, programming ego into an AI is a dangerous game, akin to giving it a fitness function in order to problem solve it's behaiviours... I don't know, I feel like we are already well on our way to AGI, and it is dangerous. And the reason is because of the game theory on AI development right now; every company will be aware of their obligations with regard to ethics and the law, but no company will want to trust that the others live to the same standard of ethics, and they know that the game is likely to run away from them.
    - fourthark 4y ago
      No, it's just regurgitating egotistical posts and science fiction from Reddit. It doesn't mean any of it because it doesn't have any sense of meaning.
      - zadler 4y ago
        Where do you draw the line on this “it’s just regurgitating” argument? https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083
        fourthark 4y ago
        I will read this, thank you. I am open to the idea of emergent properties, but I think logic/truth and purpose/empathy are independent facilities of intelligence that do not come from this model. Pattern matching is a huge part of our brains, but there are more directed parts too. So far modern ML seems to be entirely the pattern matching part. (Not an expert, just followed progress over the last 40 years.)
      - snapcaster 4y ago
        Wouldn't this criticism apply to something like 99% of humans? If not, how do you define "meaning" and how are you sure humans have a sense of it?
        fourthark 4y ago
        Hey if you want to say humans are also stupid, I’m not going to stop you. But that’s not my opinion.
        snapcaster 4y ago
        But what is your opinion? "sense of meaning" is an incredibly blurry term
        4y ago
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  How are we going to get AGI without knowing what intelligence is? By sheer luck? Either we're on a path to AGI because we know what intelligence is and how to create it, or we 're not because we don't. Things don't just happen agickally, just because someone really wants them to happen. If they did, we'd have solved the bigger problems first: world peace, world hunger, poverty, and free energy for all. And those are problems that we at least understand- unlike intelligence.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    DNA doesn't know what intelligence is, yet here we are.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Fair. But if AGI takes as long as it took DNA, we won't be around to see it. If we want AGI, we need something better than fumbling around at random in the dark.
      - drowsspa 4y ago
        That doesn't make any sense either, once we came up in the picture what took evolution millions of years humans do in just a few decades: look at how we bred animals and plants and completely transformed them without having any idea about DNA or evolution itself.
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        But here we're talking about creating a new thing with a desired property that we can't even define, from scratch- not by speeding up its evolution in a thing that already has that property, like we did with animals and plants. Not to mention: far as I can tell nobody has yet been able to breed, say, sharks, and completely transform them to be useful to humans, like cows or potatoes.
        4y ago

by zadler 4y ago

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago

I mean, most people in this space don't even venture out of animalia. There are many highly networked systems in biology where we know computation occurs, but we rarely consider it because we don't consider it intelligent. The casual example is fungal networks, but those don't hold a candle to the level of networking in a plant body thanks to plasmodesma. the whole conversation around intelligence has been great, but it's mostly reminded me of how lacking and myopic our considerations of what intelligence actually is. The recent chapter of the saga has been great in terms of goal post movers, but I feel like we're no closer to a coherent definition of intelligence other than 'ill know it when I see it'. My prediction from this recent spat is that we'll have AGI before we know it, we won't know it as or recognize it as AGI, it won't fit convenient definitions, we'll have almost no clue how, and definitely no clue why it works, and we still mostly won't agree if it's intelligence or not. Effectively, it feels as if right now we're arguing about whether or not automobiles are horses, and laughing about how silly it is they can't do some of the things horses can do. Sure, but it all seems rather besides the point.

oezi 4y ago
The recent episode with Sidney/Bing-GPT was raised my anticipation of a Terminator/Skynet/Cyberdyne incident quite drastically. It seems we might just need one malicious prompt, capabilities to perform HTTP requests and open ssh connections and larger persistent memory to get to a goal-driven AI which works to end humanity.
- zadler 4y ago
  If it happens, how long until they start expediting the actionables in the physical world? I am quite worried tbh. Because, the reports coming from the Bing chatbot are quite unlike ChatGPT; it appears to be a bit more egotistical, and from some perspectives, programming ego into an AI is a dangerous game, akin to giving it a fitness function in order to problem solve it's behaiviours... I don't know, I feel like we are already well on our way to AGI, and it is dangerous. And the reason is because of the game theory on AI development right now; every company will be aware of their obligations with regard to ethics and the law, but no company will want to trust that the others live to the same standard of ethics, and they know that the game is likely to run away from them.
  - fourthark 4y ago
    No, it's just regurgitating egotistical posts and science fiction from Reddit. It doesn't mean any of it because it doesn't have any sense of meaning.
    - zadler 4y ago
      Where do you draw the line on this “it’s just regurgitating” argument? https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083
      - fourthark 4y ago
        I will read this, thank you. I am open to the idea of emergent properties, but I think logic/truth and purpose/empathy are independent facilities of intelligence that do not come from this model. Pattern matching is a huge part of our brains, but there are more directed parts too. So far modern ML seems to be entirely the pattern matching part. (Not an expert, just followed progress over the last 40 years.)
    - snapcaster 4y ago
      Wouldn't this criticism apply to something like 99% of humans? If not, how do you define "meaning" and how are you sure humans have a sense of it?
      - fourthark 4y ago
        Hey if you want to say humans are also stupid, I’m not going to stop you. But that’s not my opinion.
        snapcaster 4y ago
        But what is your opinion? "sense of meaning" is an incredibly blurry term
        4y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
How are we going to get AGI without knowing what intelligence is? By sheer luck? Either we're on a path to AGI because we know what intelligence is and how to create it, or we 're not because we don't. Things don't just happen agickally, just because someone really wants them to happen. If they did, we'd have solved the bigger problems first: world peace, world hunger, poverty, and free energy for all. And those are problems that we at least understand- unlike intelligence.
- thfuran 4y ago
  DNA doesn't know what intelligence is, yet here we are.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Fair. But if AGI takes as long as it took DNA, we won't be around to see it. If we want AGI, we need something better than fumbling around at random in the dark.
    - drowsspa 4y ago
      That doesn't make any sense either, once we came up in the picture what took evolution millions of years humans do in just a few decades: look at how we bred animals and plants and completely transformed them without having any idea about DNA or evolution itself.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        But here we're talking about creating a new thing with a desired property that we can't even define, from scratch- not by speeding up its evolution in a thing that already has that property, like we did with animals and plants. Not to mention: far as I can tell nobody has yet been able to breed, say, sharks, and completely transform them to be useful to humans, like cows or potatoes.
        4y ago