22 ms·

I think the point he's trying to make is that AI does not have an independent Will. It lacks desires and the ability to operate in opposition to its programming

I think the point he's trying to make is that AI does not have an independent Will. It lacks desires and the ability to operate in opposition to its programming. This makes it no different from any other tool we use to enhance our abilities. Whether or not you can predict a tool's output is irrelevant. I can't predict the output of a random number generator, but that doesn't make it sentient.

blackbear_ 4y ago
This is not necessarily true, however, for example in reinforcement learning there is a lot of work on "intrinsic motivation", i.e., creating systems that set and pursue their own goals. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06976 https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06976
- philipov 4y ago
  I think it should be possible to build a sentient AI, but it hasn't been done yet. What remains to be seen is whether our current techniques will be suitable for making that self-retraining process efficient, or if we'll need to find better math to use as the basis for it. Part of what makes the brain so useful is that it fits in our skull, and is fast enough to learn in real time. But, either way, I think that's what's on the line for people who disagree about how to use the word "intelligence." They mean it as a synonym for sentience, and the people arguing against them are using it differently. Before we can evaluate the truth of an argument, we should first agree to use words the same way.
flangola7 4y ago
Asteroids are not sentient either, but they can still kill you.
- philipov 4y ago
  Asteroids aren't intelligent, either.
SanderNL 4y ago
With LLMs you say “you want to do X” and voila, personality. What is indeed missing from current implementations is continuous looping. Doing actions and taking stock of the results. I guess that’s kind of expensive right now. We’ll get there. I don’t see the fundamental problem.
circuit10 4y ago
"It lacks desires and the ability to operate in opposition to its programming." Not really true, most AI is based on optimising some goal rather than following a fixed set of rules

blackbear_ 4y ago

This is not necessarily true, however, for example in reinforcement learning there is a lot of work on "intrinsic motivation", i.e., creating systems that set and pursue their own goals. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06976 https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06976

philipov 4y ago
I think it should be possible to build a sentient AI, but it hasn't been done yet. What remains to be seen is whether our current techniques will be suitable for making that self-retraining process efficient, or if we'll need to find better math to use as the basis for it. Part of what makes the brain so useful is that it fits in our skull, and is fast enough to learn in real time. But, either way, I think that's what's on the line for people who disagree about how to use the word "intelligence." They mean it as a synonym for sentience, and the people arguing against them are using it differently. Before we can evaluate the truth of an argument, we should first agree to use words the same way.

flangola7 4y ago

Asteroids are not sentient either, but they can still kill you.

philipov 4y ago
Asteroids aren't intelligent, either.

SanderNL 4y ago

With LLMs you say “you want to do X” and voila, personality. What is indeed missing from current implementations is continuous looping. Doing actions and taking stock of the results. I guess that’s kind of expensive right now. We’ll get there. I don’t see the fundamental problem.

circuit10 4y ago

"It lacks desires and the ability to operate in opposition to its programming." Not really true, most AI is based on optimising some goal rather than following a fixed set of rules