3 ms·

At some point after the invention of AGI but before ASI there will be a legal fight to get personhood assigned to AI. This is a precursor battle to that. It wil

by Joeri 3y ago

At some point after the invention of AGI but before ASI there will be a legal fight to get personhood assigned to AI. This is a precursor battle to that. It will either lead to a broader definition of person where the higher mammals gain people’s rights as well, and a whole bunch of whalers will get brought up on charges of xenocide, or more likely it will lead to an extension of corporate personhood where the AI always has a human owner, but can itself own things. Of course, if ASI arrives the point is moot. It will inevitably take over from us and shortly after that the concept of property will probably become irrelevant.

exe34 3y ago
I don't think there will be a gap between agi and ASI. The definition of agi keeps shifting - any time an ai can do something, it's just engineering. Current AIs, although narrow, are already superhuman in what they can do. A language AI can converse in more languages than any living human can learn. A chess playing AI can beat any living human. So each time an AI wins on one metric, it's not going to be human level, it'll be superhuman level very quickly. When an AI finally learns the "only a human can do this" thing, it'll already be superhuman in every other way.
- ForIveSyntax 3y ago
  Yes, they’re better at chess. No, they’re profoundly incompetent at conversation, just incompetent at many languages at once. Where else are they superhuman? The ability to generate unoriginal, uncanny art faster than a painter? Fair-ish enough. It’s not just moving the goalposts. It’s more like we didn’t know where the goalposts were.
  - exe34 3y ago
    If they were profoundly incompetent at conversation, we wouldn't be worried about weaponization of LLMs to sway public opinion. If the things they write and the images or voices or videos they made were worthless, we wouldn't be worried about how they displace carbon-based artists. Any commercially relevant shortcomings present today will be gone in version n+1 or soon after.

by Joeri 3y ago

exe34 3y ago

I don't think there will be a gap between agi and ASI. The definition of agi keeps shifting - any time an ai can do something, it's just engineering. Current AIs, although narrow, are already superhuman in what they can do. A language AI can converse in more languages than any living human can learn. A chess playing AI can beat any living human. So each time an AI wins on one metric, it's not going to be human level, it'll be superhuman level very quickly. When an AI finally learns the "only a human can do this" thing, it'll already be superhuman in every other way.

ForIveSyntax 3y ago
Yes, they’re better at chess. No, they’re profoundly incompetent at conversation, just incompetent at many languages at once. Where else are they superhuman? The ability to generate unoriginal, uncanny art faster than a painter? Fair-ish enough. It’s not just moving the goalposts. It’s more like we didn’t know where the goalposts were.
- exe34 3y ago
  If they were profoundly incompetent at conversation, we wouldn't be worried about weaponization of LLMs to sway public opinion. If the things they write and the images or voices or videos they made were worthless, we wouldn't be worried about how they displace carbon-based artists. Any commercially relevant shortcomings present today will be gone in version n+1 or soon after.