3 ms·

While I’m sharing your assessment of the motivation I do not think it’s great to take a snapshot in time on an exponential curve and argue ‘it’s far away from b

by gmerc 3y ago

While I’m sharing your assessment of the motivation I do not think it’s great to take a snapshot in time on an exponential curve and argue ‘it’s far away from being intelligent’ When something goes from not being able to do something to almost human level, arguing that almost isn’t a threat is not exactly wise.

LatteLazy 3y ago
Of course a (flat) linear line looks very similar to an exponential early in on the curve... But I suppose that cuts both ways :)
toss1 3y ago
>>When something goes from not being able to do something to almost human level Point taken, and yes I have read Bostron's book and others, so I understand the runaway concern. However, the issue I have is with the "almost human level". We must look at the mechanics of what is happening. The technologies of mirrors, lenses, or photography have been able for centuries to create images at far beyond the level of most humans. Yet, capturing the vectors of incident photons is in no way reproducing human capability. These "AI" tools are capturing and reproducing the vectors of existing human output of words and/or images. The output can be impressive in both the parlor game and useful senses. Yet, there is deeply no "there" there. Just look at the "single banana problem", or the massive confident hallucination problems. Consider the responses of taking a Polaroid instant-photo camera to a pre-industrial society with sophisticated artistic capabilities. They'd at first regard the camera/printer with astonishment and consider that it may have artificially human capabilities. But they'd soon figure out that the camera has no concept of a person, and cannot compose one image of two people present only at different times. We are very much like that society regarding the camera-printer, and we're still in the astonished "Holy Cowabunga!" moment. But, the more I use it, the more I'm convinced that this is, like a camera in many situations, an occasionally extremely useful tool, but nowhere near any level of actual intelligence.

by gmerc 3y ago

LatteLazy 3y ago

Of course a (flat) linear line looks very similar to an exponential early in on the curve... But I suppose that cuts both ways :)

toss1 3y ago

>>When something goes from not being able to do something to almost human level Point taken, and yes I have read Bostron's book and others, so I understand the runaway concern. However, the issue I have is with the "almost human level". We must look at the mechanics of what is happening. The technologies of mirrors, lenses, or photography have been able for centuries to create images at far beyond the level of most humans. Yet, capturing the vectors of incident photons is in no way reproducing human capability. These "AI" tools are capturing and reproducing the vectors of existing human output of words and/or images. The output can be impressive in both the parlor game and useful senses. Yet, there is deeply no "there" there. Just look at the "single banana problem", or the massive confident hallucination problems. Consider the responses of taking a Polaroid instant-photo camera to a pre-industrial society with sophisticated artistic capabilities. They'd at first regard the camera/printer with astonishment and consider that it may have artificially human capabilities. But they'd soon figure out that the camera has no concept of a person, and cannot compose one image of two people present only at different times. We are very much like that society regarding the camera-printer, and we're still in the astonished "Holy Cowabunga!" moment. But, the more I use it, the more I'm convinced that this is, like a camera in many situations, an occasionally extremely useful tool, but nowhere near any level of actual intelligence.