4 ms·

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 c

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.
      - drowsspa 4y ago
        I think this "human exceptionalism" will be proven wrong by construction in the very near future.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'this "human exceptionalism"'. What is going to happen in the near future? [I wrote a longer comment where I made many assumptions about what you might have meant but I hate doing that, so sorry if you happened to read it. It wasn't offensive or anything, I just genuinely have no idea what you mean and so I replaced it with this comment. I am sincerely asking you to explain what you mean because I didn't get it. Apologies! Communication is hard]
        RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
        i think googling it would be helpful, but in an overly general way, human exceptionalism is the idwa that there is sometjing unique or special associated with the human experience or with human experience. The broader point i was making in the original comment is agaisnt this sentiment. Humans abiluty to unserstand why things happen bears little relevance to them happening. We now know little if anything about why the human consious experience happens or why it works, yet here we are. Humans can make gun powder or a water wheel with no understanding of electron orbital theory or an concept of gravity that outlines orbital mechanics. The shocking effectiveness of piling up large amounts of complexity seems to be sufficient many of the phenomena that humans seem to desure a much more mechanistic explanatiom for. In this sense, it could be that complexity is all you need. and to bring it full circle, what about the complexity we see in non human, non animal systems? if complexity is all you need, what might be happening beyond the veil of human assumptioms around the consious experience?
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  If we're going to be quipping, then DNA can't built nuclear reactors, nor computers. Unless, of course, it is first decoded into a human scientist. But I don't see the point here? We can't build things we don't know how to define.
stevenhuang 4y ago
For all we know about intelligence/consciousness, it may be an emergent behaviour of complex systems. See this cool this paper, "Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models" https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083
- RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
  I think chat GPT could be held up as a leg of support in this regard.

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.
    - drowsspa 4y ago
      I think this "human exceptionalism" will be proven wrong by construction in the very near future.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
        Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by 'this "human exceptionalism"'. What is going to happen in the near future? [I wrote a longer comment where I made many assumptions about what you might have meant but I hate doing that, so sorry if you happened to read it. It wasn't offensive or anything, I just genuinely have no idea what you mean and so I replaced it with this comment. I am sincerely asking you to explain what you mean because I didn't get it. Apologies! Communication is hard]
        RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
        i think googling it would be helpful, but in an overly general way, human exceptionalism is the idwa that there is sometjing unique or special associated with the human experience or with human experience. The broader point i was making in the original comment is agaisnt this sentiment. Humans abiluty to unserstand why things happen bears little relevance to them happening. We now know little if anything about why the human consious experience happens or why it works, yet here we are. Humans can make gun powder or a water wheel with no understanding of electron orbital theory or an concept of gravity that outlines orbital mechanics. The shocking effectiveness of piling up large amounts of complexity seems to be sufficient many of the phenomena that humans seem to desure a much more mechanistic explanatiom for. In this sense, it could be that complexity is all you need. and to bring it full circle, what about the complexity we see in non human, non animal systems? if complexity is all you need, what might be happening beyond the veil of human assumptioms around the consious experience?
        YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
If we're going to be quipping, then DNA can't built nuclear reactors, nor computers. Unless, of course, it is first decoded into a human scientist. But I don't see the point here? We can't build things we don't know how to define.

stevenhuang 4y ago

For all we know about intelligence/consciousness, it may be an emergent behaviour of complex systems. See this cool this paper, "Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models" https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083 https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
I think chat GPT could be held up as a leg of support in this regard.