3 ms·

I don't know if we're close, but it seems like a lot of people have an implicit assumption that AGI means we created an artificial person. When in reality whate

by titzer 3y ago

I don't know if we're close, but it seems like a lot of people have an implicit assumption that AGI means we created an artificial person. When in reality whatever intelligent things we create in the digital world are not going to behave like people. I mean, an AGI didn't poop its pants in 3rd grade or have a disapproving father or get ridiculed by a bully or a million other things that people normally go through in their lives that lead to their quirky personalities. It's going to be an anti-septically sheltered weirdo with super-human reasoning and a whole lot of unfunny jokes.

mindcrime 3y ago
I don't know if we're close, but it seems like a lot of people have an implicit assumption that AGI means we created an artificial person. When in reality whatever intelligent things we create in the digital world are not going to behave like people. I mean, an AGI didn't poop its pants in 3rd grade or have a disapproving father or get ridiculed by a bully or a million other things that people normally go through in their lives that lead to their quirky personalities. Agreed. In fact, if you go back through my HN comment history (not an exercise I actually suggest mind you) you'll see that I frequently harp on the distinction between "human level" intelligence and "human like" intelligence. Where in my lexicon, those are distinguished largely the absence of actual reference to human experiences like "getting ridiculed by a bully" or "pooping your pants in 3rd grade" in the case of "human level, but not human like" AI. I think not everyone agrees that this distinction is important, or maybe they just haven't spent enough time thinking about the implications. But I believe it is important to call this out and make clear which scenario we're talking about in many (most?) contexts.

3 ms·

I don't know if we're close, but it seems like a lot of people have an implicit assumption that AGI means we created an artificial person. When in reality whate

by titzer 3y ago

mindcrime 3y ago
I don't know if we're close, but it seems like a lot of people have an implicit assumption that AGI means we created an artificial person. When in reality whatever intelligent things we create in the digital world are not going to behave like people. I mean, an AGI didn't poop its pants in 3rd grade or have a disapproving father or get ridiculed by a bully or a million other things that people normally go through in their lives that lead to their quirky personalities. Agreed. In fact, if you go back through my HN comment history (not an exercise I actually suggest mind you) you'll see that I frequently harp on the distinction between "human level" intelligence and "human like" intelligence. Where in my lexicon, those are distinguished largely the absence of actual reference to human experiences like "getting ridiculed by a bully" or "pooping your pants in 3rd grade" in the case of "human level, but not human like" AI. I think not everyone agrees that this distinction is important, or maybe they just haven't spent enough time thinking about the implications. But I believe it is important to call this out and make clear which scenario we're talking about in many (most?) contexts.