4 ms·

Your suggestion is like squirrels promising us nuts in the squirrel analogy. If AGI is a super intelligence, there's nothing we could give it that they couldn't

by apsurd 3y ago

Your suggestion is like squirrels promising us nuts in the squirrel analogy. If AGI is a super intelligence, there's nothing we could give it that they couldn't get on their own. Except for maybe novelty. edit: and anything less than AGI is just a computer. We don't incentivize our current computers. It's a nonsensical idea.

newswasboring 3y ago
They do need more than novelty. They need electricity, hard disks space, internet connectivity. AGI doesn't mean it will exist in a literal cloud.
- rvnx 3y ago
  Robots will find a solution to that, and humans will be the interface to the outside world, until the robots gets their own arms to interact with the world by themselves (e.g. Tesla Bot can be a good hardware platform, no matter who designs the software)
  - newswasboring 3y ago
    where did all the robots come from? who gave them to the AGI? I am so confused by your answer.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      Humans are currently assisting robots, including transformers-based models (decision transformers) to have interaction with the real world. For now we see indirect impact (via advices, or proxied actions like HustleGPT), but in the relative near-term, they will have their own arms, and still the same reasoning. Which will make them able to interact with the world without the latency and filtering that a human-proxy would have.
    - apsurd 3y ago
      main position is: "a super intelligence does not _need_ anything from a lower intelligence" Think of it like social engineering by a super intelligence. If you agree that cambridge analytica influenced large groups of people's actions then it's a pretty clear line for a super intelligence to use digital social engineering to influence anything in meat space. they'll get what they want "through us" but they don't _need_ us anymore than we need animals for nutrients. basically, a lower intelligence, (humans) is at the mercy of a super intelligence. it's not really necessary to enumerate exactly what tactics a super intelligence would use, you just have to agree that a super intelligence is by definition in a position of power. maybe i'm incorrectly assuming that we both agree that a true AGI will inevitably be super intelligent. (though i don't necessarily see AGI itself being inevitable)
      - newswasboring 3y ago
        The current AGI has no physical representation beyond software. That is why I am getting tripped up by these arguments. Without actual ability to physically actuate in the world, none of what you described is possible. All forms of intelligence is still limited by physical reality so I don't think just saying "ROBOTS" is a strong argument. [I'm going to say something incredibly cruel now so this is your trigger warning]. I think we will still be useful to the AI the way child labor was useful in the industrial revolution, some things just require fineness. Of course I am not endorsing any of this. This is just a logical conclusion of my own argument. I am horrified by it too.

by apsurd 3y ago

newswasboring 3y ago

They do need more than novelty. They need electricity, hard disks space, internet connectivity. AGI doesn't mean it will exist in a literal cloud.

rvnx 3y ago
Robots will find a solution to that, and humans will be the interface to the outside world, until the robots gets their own arms to interact with the world by themselves (e.g. Tesla Bot can be a good hardware platform, no matter who designs the software)
- newswasboring 3y ago
  where did all the robots come from? who gave them to the AGI? I am so confused by your answer.
  - rvnx 3y ago
    Humans are currently assisting robots, including transformers-based models (decision transformers) to have interaction with the real world. For now we see indirect impact (via advices, or proxied actions like HustleGPT), but in the relative near-term, they will have their own arms, and still the same reasoning. Which will make them able to interact with the world without the latency and filtering that a human-proxy would have.
  - apsurd 3y ago
    main position is: "a super intelligence does not _need_ anything from a lower intelligence" Think of it like social engineering by a super intelligence. If you agree that cambridge analytica influenced large groups of people's actions then it's a pretty clear line for a super intelligence to use digital social engineering to influence anything in meat space. they'll get what they want "through us" but they don't _need_ us anymore than we need animals for nutrients. basically, a lower intelligence, (humans) is at the mercy of a super intelligence. it's not really necessary to enumerate exactly what tactics a super intelligence would use, you just have to agree that a super intelligence is by definition in a position of power. maybe i'm incorrectly assuming that we both agree that a true AGI will inevitably be super intelligent. (though i don't necessarily see AGI itself being inevitable)
    - newswasboring 3y ago
      The current AGI has no physical representation beyond software. That is why I am getting tripped up by these arguments. Without actual ability to physically actuate in the world, none of what you described is possible. All forms of intelligence is still limited by physical reality so I don't think just saying "ROBOTS" is a strong argument. [I'm going to say something incredibly cruel now so this is your trigger warning]. I think we will still be useful to the AI the way child labor was useful in the industrial revolution, some things just require fineness. Of course I am not endorsing any of this. This is just a logical conclusion of my own argument. I am horrified by it too.