3 ms·

In what way does the technology disprove them? They're pretty general statements (I agree they're not really technical arguments).

nradov 3y ago
You're not even asking the right question. No one can prove a negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far no one has produced real evidence that the latest AI developments represent any sort of existential threat. The proponents are essentially making religious arguments, not scientific ones.
- digging 3y ago
  No, that's not right at all. Proof of impossibility does exist in logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility It's also demonstrable that we have other physical ideas such as FTL travel that are indicated to be impossible by current theories of physics. If we didn't have the math saying otherwise, it would be an open question of whether we can travel faster than light; but we have pretty solid math math saying we cannot. And what we're talking about is logical in nature. Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes. Therefore, how is it reasonable to say that creating human-level artificial intelligence should be assumed impossible until proven? Just because we don't have the technology for it yet doesn't mean we should assume it's impossible. Logically, it follows from the first two assertions that it is physically possible to create artificial human-like intelligence. Once again, and I don't know if I've said it in this thread directly but I've had to post it over and over again, nobody is claiming that the latest AI developments represent an existential threat. That's a complete mischaracterization of the debate and reeks of bad-faith argument but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've misunderstood. In fact, that statement conflates two things into one nonsense argument. What's scary about current AI is how quickly it is moving, indicating a short timeline to (future) dangerous AGI. Also, it is possible that future AGI will be dangerous. These are two separate, rather simple assertions. If you disagree with either, that's fair, but you have to address them separately.
  - nradov 3y ago
    No, that's not right at all. You're just making things up and raising points that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is no logic in your claims. In particular there is zero evidence that current AI indicates a short timeline to future AGI. What a load of crap.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - danaris 3y ago
    > Proof of impossibility does exist in logic: In logic, sure. But we're not living in a system of formal logic. We're living in a very messy world, full of physics, chemistry, and even (shudder) biology. Here's the important question: What would you consider to be sufficient proof that AGI is impossible? Like, hypothetically. Doesn't even have to be based on any of the current facts on the ground in our universe. What facts or arguments could possibly convince you that this is not something that can ever happen? If the answer is "nothing that I can think of", then you're asking other people to provide something you can't even define. (If the answer is "nothing, definitely", then that means AGI is, for you, unfalsifiable, and essentially falls into the same category as religion.) > Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes. And here, you're falling victim to the ambiguity in human language (or, at least, in English). "Intelligence" is not a clearly-defined word in this context, and while you seem to be presenting it as meaning the same thing in those two sentences, I would claim that it does not. In the second sentence, it is clear that it is intended to mean "thinking intelligently, in a manner and to a degree similarly to humans". In the first sentence, it cannot mean anything about "thinking in the same manner as humans," because you are talking about "artificial intelligences" that have already been created, and none of them think in anything like the same manner as humans. The difference between existing "artificial intelligences" and either humans or a hypothetical AGI is a difference in kind, not in degree, and you (and many others) gloss over that when you talk about "artificial intelligence" in one breath and "human-level intelligence" in the next. Saying that all we need to do is keep going on the same track we're on with LLMs and similar "AI" programs, and we'll very soon (or ever!) reach AGI, is very like saying all we need to do to solve NP-hard problems in P-time is to throw more hardware at it. Sure, you'll get faster at doing the thing you're doing, but without some hitherto-unforeseen breakthrough (proving P=NP in the latter case; figuring out how to make AGI in the former), you'll never bridge a difference of kind by increasing the degree of effort.

nradov 3y ago

You're not even asking the right question. No one can prove a negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far no one has produced real evidence that the latest AI developments represent any sort of existential threat. The proponents are essentially making religious arguments, not scientific ones.

digging 3y ago
No, that's not right at all. Proof of impossibility does exist in logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility It's also demonstrable that we have other physical ideas such as FTL travel that are indicated to be impossible by current theories of physics. If we didn't have the math saying otherwise, it would be an open question of whether we can travel faster than light; but we have pretty solid math math saying we cannot. And what we're talking about is logical in nature. Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes. Therefore, how is it reasonable to say that creating human-level artificial intelligence should be assumed impossible until proven? Just because we don't have the technology for it yet doesn't mean we should assume it's impossible. Logically, it follows from the first two assertions that it is physically possible to create artificial human-like intelligence. Once again, and I don't know if I've said it in this thread directly but I've had to post it over and over again, nobody is claiming that the latest AI developments represent an existential threat. That's a complete mischaracterization of the debate and reeks of bad-faith argument but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've misunderstood. In fact, that statement conflates two things into one nonsense argument. What's scary about current AI is how quickly it is moving, indicating a short timeline to (future) dangerous AGI. Also, it is possible that future AGI will be dangerous. These are two separate, rather simple assertions. If you disagree with either, that's fair, but you have to address them separately.
- nradov 3y ago
  No, that's not right at all. You're just making things up and raising points that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is no logic in your claims. In particular there is zero evidence that current AI indicates a short timeline to future AGI. What a load of crap.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- danaris 3y ago
  > Proof of impossibility does exist in logic: In logic, sure. But we're not living in a system of formal logic. We're living in a very messy world, full of physics, chemistry, and even (shudder) biology. Here's the important question: What would you consider to be sufficient proof that AGI is impossible? Like, hypothetically. Doesn't even have to be based on any of the current facts on the ground in our universe. What facts or arguments could possibly convince you that this is not something that can ever happen? If the answer is "nothing that I can think of", then you're asking other people to provide something you can't even define. (If the answer is "nothing, definitely", then that means AGI is, for you, unfalsifiable, and essentially falls into the same category as religion.) > Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes. And here, you're falling victim to the ambiguity in human language (or, at least, in English). "Intelligence" is not a clearly-defined word in this context, and while you seem to be presenting it as meaning the same thing in those two sentences, I would claim that it does not. In the second sentence, it is clear that it is intended to mean "thinking intelligently, in a manner and to a degree similarly to humans". In the first sentence, it cannot mean anything about "thinking in the same manner as humans," because you are talking about "artificial intelligences" that have already been created, and none of them think in anything like the same manner as humans. The difference between existing "artificial intelligences" and either humans or a hypothetical AGI is a difference in kind, not in degree, and you (and many others) gloss over that when you talk about "artificial intelligence" in one breath and "human-level intelligence" in the next. Saying that all we need to do is keep going on the same track we're on with LLMs and similar "AI" programs, and we'll very soon (or ever!) reach AGI, is very like saying all we need to do to solve NP-hard problems in P-time is to throw more hardware at it. Sure, you'll get faster at doing the thing you're doing, but without some hitherto-unforeseen breakthrough (proving P=NP in the latter case; figuring out how to make AGI in the former), you'll never bridge a difference of kind by increasing the degree of effort.