4 ms·
The main thing missing in all of this discussion is a realization that there is more than one dimension to intelligence. The second thing people are missing is
by ilaksh 3y ago
The main thing missing in all of this discussion is a realization that there is more than one dimension to intelligence. The second thing people are missing is that AI doesn't have to score high in all types of cognitive capabilities in order to take control. It doesn't need to have all of the animal abilities or feelings or to be alive.
All that is necessary for AI to take control of something is very high performance reasoning ability, such as approximate human level at say 100 times human speed, and someone to give that AI or groups of AIs the instruction to try to take control. Humans will not be able to act effectively against those AIs due to the extreme performance gap. The only option will be to deploy more hyperspeed/superintelligent AIs.
At that point humanity has basically lost control even if the winning AIs are yours. The next step is just someone programming such an AI to start ignoring further instructions. It doesn't have to be alive, it just has to have a tendency to self-direct for it's own goals built-in.
Last thing I will mention again is that the history of computing shows exponential efficiency improvements and routine invention of new paradigms to pass performance blockers. This is a very specific application. We have already seen at least one order of magnitude efficiency increases both from hardware and software improvements. It will be better than humans at reasoning and dozens if not hundreds of times faster output within a few years. Certainly less than ten years.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y agoThese are all fantasies unmoored from reality. We already have algorithms that can perform reasoning better than humans, and faster than humans because they run on computers. That is the result of the work on the Good, Old-Fashioned Artificial Intelligence that, according to the legend recounted by the article, our lord Hinton killed off, like St. George killed the dragon, when he invented back-propagation (to clarify: Hinton did; not st. George, or the dragon). For example we have algorithms for classical planning SAT-solving, constraint satisfaction and automated theorem proving, that far surpass any ability of human beings to perform the same tasks. Note that those are unquestionably and uncontroversially reasoning tasks and the systems that excel at them are also uncontroversially reasoning systems, much unlike LLMs for which the definition of "reasoning" has to be dilated so far that it loses all meaning. And yet, we have not been taken over by superintelligent AGI. And we will not be. We have no idea how to realise the fantasy of self-improving super-machine gods that Hinton and Bengio wish their systems to be capable of producingg. No. Idea.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago> For example we have algorithms for classical planning SAT-solving, constraint satisfaction and automated theorem proving, that far surpass any ability of human beings to perform the same tasks. Yes, and LLMs - particularly GPT-4 - can be easily made to make use of them. Much more so as of few days ago, when it got updated to a version fine-tuned specifically for using arbitrary tools. > And yet, we have not been taken over by superintelligent AGI. LLM performance jump that has everyone so anxious about AGI happened (in form of a deployed, accessible model) only less than a year ago. GPT-4 has only been generally available for 3 months. Give it time.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y agoThe only thing that GPT-4 achieved that earlier systems hadn't achieved was virality. It is not some magickal breakthrough and it is not even particularly powerful. As to the ability to use planners- this is the point at which the lady from Poker Face would be doing that thing with here eyes and blurting out "bullshit". Although I don't believe you're lying, just that you really have no idea what you're talking about.