4 ms·

Why?

JohnFen 3y ago
Because I see nothing that indicates it is. It's pretty hard to come up with evidence for absence, though, which is why the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not on those who are hearing the positive claim.
- digging 3y ago
  All we're talking about is logical reasoning. There is no burden of proof in the way that you're using it (and other keep using it). I'm not claiming that mythological gods exist. Human-level intelligence can exist. You, a natural human-level intelligence, cannot dispute this. I expect that it's possible for superhuman intelligence to exist. I don't think I need to prove that it's physically possible for a superhuman intelligence, natural or otherwise, to exist. Do you think it's not possible? If so, I'd say you need to prove why you think human-level intelligence is literally the pinnacle of intelligence that is physically possible in the universe (especially when narrow AI are already superhuman at many tasks). Artificial intelligence exists and can be created by humans. This could be disputed if you wanted to gerrymander some really specific borders around what "intelligence" is, but if we don't agree that artificial intelligence exists today, just say than and we'll be done talking. AGI does not exist. I assert that it can exist, because narrow AI can be improved. Do you believe it's not physically possible for human-level AGI to ever exist? If so, you need to prove to me why we can create narrow AI that is superhuman but cannot ever synthesize them into a human-like intelligence. (And also please give me the scale by which you're measuring an alien brain against ours.) And if we both agree on all the above, then I take my assertion further: It is possible for humans to create superhuman AGI. It's really not a big leap from human-level AGI (in fact, I think that if it's possible to create AGI which matches humans exactly, it's probably easier to surpass human levels than to match them exactly, because it's hard enough to measure human intelligence). So if it's physically possible for us to create superhuman AGI, what exactly am I proving? Do I need to invent the technology in order to prove that the concept is possible?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Human-level intelligence can exist. You, a natural human-level intelligence, cannot dispute this. Of course. > I expect that it's possible for superhuman intelligence to exist. I agree. > Artificial intelligence exists and can be created by humans. This is where we disagree, although as you say, it depends on what you mean by "intelligence". I think in the context of this discussion, we're talking about some sort of superhuman intelligence with its own will and perhaps consciousness. In the largest possible sense, it's probable that creating such a thing can be done. Where we probably disagree is that I think we're a very, very long way from being able to do that. Nothing we have now makes me suspect that we're anywhere near that sort of thing. > It is possible for humans to create superhuman AGI. It's really not a big leap from human-level AGI Agreed. But I assert that we're nowhere near being able to create human-level AGI right now. > in fact, I think that if it's possible to create AGI which matches humans exactly I think this isn't possible at all unless you also create an entire human body. > what exactly am I proving? The assertion that AGI is a thing that is likely to happen soon. Personally, I think it's vanishingly unlikely to happen within our lifetimes, and very unlikely within the lifetime of our children. Freaking out about the risks of AGI right now is a serious overreaction. Calmly pondering it would be more appropriate.
    - digging 3y ago
      All that is pretty reasonable, I appreciate your measured response. So the fundamental disagreement is over how close we are to dangerous AI. If you're right, we might delay useful AI by decades or centuries being overly cautious. Useful AI could either alleviate untold suffering, or it could cause untold suffering and inequality by misuse. If I'm right, we could go extinct for lack of caution. And given that we really don't have any way of knowing with any amount of certainty how close we are to AGI, you see why people are concerned, right? Calmly pondering feels like a serious underreaction. Vigorous, frequent, and open debate would be more appropriate. I'm not saying let's turn off all our computers for a decade.

Why?

Because I see nothing that indicates it is. It's pretty hard to come up with evidence for absence, though, which is why the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, not on those who are hearing the positive claim.

digging 3y ago
All we're talking about is logical reasoning. There is no burden of proof in the way that you're using it (and other keep using it). I'm not claiming that mythological gods exist. Human-level intelligence can exist. You, a natural human-level intelligence, cannot dispute this. I expect that it's possible for superhuman intelligence to exist. I don't think I need to prove that it's physically possible for a superhuman intelligence, natural or otherwise, to exist. Do you think it's not possible? If so, I'd say you need to prove why you think human-level intelligence is literally the pinnacle of intelligence that is physically possible in the universe (especially when narrow AI are already superhuman at many tasks). Artificial intelligence exists and can be created by humans. This could be disputed if you wanted to gerrymander some really specific borders around what "intelligence" is, but if we don't agree that artificial intelligence exists today, just say than and we'll be done talking. AGI does not exist. I assert that it can exist, because narrow AI can be improved. Do you believe it's not physically possible for human-level AGI to ever exist? If so, you need to prove to me why we can create narrow AI that is superhuman but cannot ever synthesize them into a human-like intelligence. (And also please give me the scale by which you're measuring an alien brain against ours.) And if we both agree on all the above, then I take my assertion further: It is possible for humans to create superhuman AGI. It's really not a big leap from human-level AGI (in fact, I think that if it's possible to create AGI which matches humans exactly, it's probably easier to surpass human levels than to match them exactly, because it's hard enough to measure human intelligence). So if it's physically possible for us to create superhuman AGI, what exactly am I proving? Do I need to invent the technology in order to prove that the concept is possible?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Human-level intelligence can exist. You, a natural human-level intelligence, cannot dispute this. Of course. > I expect that it's possible for superhuman intelligence to exist. I agree. > Artificial intelligence exists and can be created by humans. This is where we disagree, although as you say, it depends on what you mean by "intelligence". I think in the context of this discussion, we're talking about some sort of superhuman intelligence with its own will and perhaps consciousness. In the largest possible sense, it's probable that creating such a thing can be done. Where we probably disagree is that I think we're a very, very long way from being able to do that. Nothing we have now makes me suspect that we're anywhere near that sort of thing. > It is possible for humans to create superhuman AGI. It's really not a big leap from human-level AGI Agreed. But I assert that we're nowhere near being able to create human-level AGI right now. > in fact, I think that if it's possible to create AGI which matches humans exactly I think this isn't possible at all unless you also create an entire human body. > what exactly am I proving? The assertion that AGI is a thing that is likely to happen soon. Personally, I think it's vanishingly unlikely to happen within our lifetimes, and very unlikely within the lifetime of our children. Freaking out about the risks of AGI right now is a serious overreaction. Calmly pondering it would be more appropriate.
  - digging 3y ago
    All that is pretty reasonable, I appreciate your measured response. So the fundamental disagreement is over how close we are to dangerous AI. If you're right, we might delay useful AI by decades or centuries being overly cautious. Useful AI could either alleviate untold suffering, or it could cause untold suffering and inequality by misuse. If I'm right, we could go extinct for lack of caution. And given that we really don't have any way of knowing with any amount of certainty how close we are to AGI, you see why people are concerned, right? Calmly pondering feels like a serious underreaction. Vigorous, frequent, and open debate would be more appropriate. I'm not saying let's turn off all our computers for a decade.