4 ms·

> Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have? None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. > Can it be turned

> Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have? None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. > Can it be turned off? Yes it's a machine. Save state, power down. > Can it commit crimes or be punished? See PGE and its own death toll. > Does it have rights? No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If you think that were going to accidentally stumble into sentience never mind sapenenc I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

kazinator 2y ago
We can't formally stumble into sentience because we don't have a definition of it let alone a test which can confirm or refute its presence. People will think they "know it when they see it". The arguing will be fun.
_heimdall 2y ago
> None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. The question of rights would be legislative rather than judicial. More importantly, the discussion should actually be among the people first in anything resembling a democracy, the few in charge are meant to represent us not rule us. > See PGE and its own death toll. Unless I'm mistaken, PGE isn't an artificial intelligence or sentient. > No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If you think that were going to accidentally stumble into sentience never mind sapenenc I have a bridge I would like to sell you. OpenAI's explicit goal is to create and release an AGI. A majority of experts in the industry I have either talked with personally or heard in long form interviews expect that we could be very close to AGI, on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years on the high end. Given how slowly any societal discussion related to rights of a population move, do you think we'll have plenty of time to decide this after an AGI is released in some spectacularly Silicon Valley product release party?
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  >> on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years Fusion, flying cars, AI in the 50's and in the 70's... Hell Hal was born in 97 and the film was in 68. For as impressive as LLM's are once you dig into them they aren't magical at all. A sophisticated model of language that predicts the next word is about as likely to become an AGI as whether predictions are likely to control the weather. Ask any expert in AGI what the "next token" is and they are going to fucking disagree. This isnt us building the bomb where we have a pretty good idea of how to do it and just need to put all the parts together. This is a bunch of people stabbing in the dark and getting lucky here and there. Were not going to bumble fuck our way forward on this, and the path were going down has potential to be a game changer but its not going to give us a super intelligence...
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    We don't have a clear, agreed upon definition of AGI, a way to test for it, or a way to predict whether a new model will meet those criteria. The definition OpenAI uses for AGI is being more economically valuable than most humans at most things. That definition is entirely backwards looking. They'll keep releasing new models and occasionally check in to see how each model compared to humans economically. If that isn't bumble ducking our way into it I don't know what is. Its interesting that you raise the difference in knowing the physics behind a bomb before building it and AI research stabbing in the dark as an acceptable thing. Its precisely that they don't know exactly what they're doing that there is so much risk. They're building potentially very powerful and dangerous things, connecting them to the public internet, and selling them to whoever wants to use them. That doesn't seem at all risky or dangerous to you?
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      > The definition OpenAI uses for AGI is being more economically valuable than most humans at most things. Then were already there. The web, amazon is already more valuable than sears and roebuck was as a paper catalog. All those people who took calls or opened envelopes, all the manual tracking of inventory and orders... we replaced all that years ago.

kazinator 2y ago

We can't formally stumble into sentience because we don't have a definition of it let alone a test which can confirm or refute its presence. People will think they "know it when they see it". The arguing will be fun.

_heimdall 2y ago

> None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue. The question of rights would be legislative rather than judicial. More importantly, the discussion should actually be among the people first in anything resembling a democracy, the few in charge are meant to represent us not rule us. > See PGE and its own death toll. Unless I'm mistaken, PGE isn't an artificial intelligence or sentient. > No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If you think that were going to accidentally stumble into sentience never mind sapenenc I have a bridge I would like to sell you. OpenAI's explicit goal is to create and release an AGI. A majority of experts in the industry I have either talked with personally or heard in long form interviews expect that we could be very close to AGI, on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years on the high end. Given how slowly any societal discussion related to rights of a population move, do you think we'll have plenty of time to decide this after an AGI is released in some spectacularly Silicon Valley product release party?

zer00eyz 2y ago
>> on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years Fusion, flying cars, AI in the 50's and in the 70's... Hell Hal was born in 97 and the film was in 68. For as impressive as LLM's are once you dig into them they aren't magical at all. A sophisticated model of language that predicts the next word is about as likely to become an AGI as whether predictions are likely to control the weather. Ask any expert in AGI what the "next token" is and they are going to fucking disagree. This isnt us building the bomb where we have a pretty good idea of how to do it and just need to put all the parts together. This is a bunch of people stabbing in the dark and getting lucky here and there. Were not going to bumble fuck our way forward on this, and the path were going down has potential to be a game changer but its not going to give us a super intelligence...
- _heimdall 2y ago
  We don't have a clear, agreed upon definition of AGI, a way to test for it, or a way to predict whether a new model will meet those criteria. The definition OpenAI uses for AGI is being more economically valuable than most humans at most things. That definition is entirely backwards looking. They'll keep releasing new models and occasionally check in to see how each model compared to humans economically. If that isn't bumble ducking our way into it I don't know what is. Its interesting that you raise the difference in knowing the physics behind a bomb before building it and AI research stabbing in the dark as an acceptable thing. Its precisely that they don't know exactly what they're doing that there is so much risk. They're building potentially very powerful and dangerous things, connecting them to the public internet, and selling them to whoever wants to use them. That doesn't seem at all risky or dangerous to you?
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    > The definition OpenAI uses for AGI is being more economically valuable than most humans at most things. Then were already there. The web, amazon is already more valuable than sears and roebuck was as a paper catalog. All those people who took calls or opened envelopes, all the manual tracking of inventory and orders... we replaced all that years ago.