5 ms·

I can't disagree more. Or maybe I actually agree. Because it's not easy to tell whether something is flying. Definitions like that fall apart every time we enc

I can't disagree more. Or maybe I actually agree. Because it's not easy to tell whether something is flying. Definitions like that fall apart every time we encounter something out of the ordinary. If you take the criterion of "there's no discussion about it", then you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting. Is an ekranoplan flying? Is an orbiting spaceship flying? Is a hovercraft flying? Is a chicken flapping its wings over a fence flying? Your criterion would suggest the answer of "no" to any of those cases, even though those cover much of the same use cases as flying, and possibly some new, more interesting ones. And I don't think an AGI must be limited to the familiar notion of intelligence to be considered an AGI, or, at the very least, to open up avenues that were closed before.

misnome 2y ago
"It's not flying, it's falling... with style"
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  I always fall with style and I always do it on purpose :|
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
There are going to be gray areas of course, but the point I'm making is that if it's hard to argue something isn't flying (respectively, intelligent) then it's probably flying (resp. intelligent). If it's hard to tell then it's probably not. I'm suggesting that intelligence, like flying, should be very immediately obvious. For example, you can't miss the fact that a five-year old child is intelligent and you can't miss the fact that a stone is not. There may be all sorts of things in between for which we can't be sure, or whose intelligence depends on definition, or point of view, etc. but when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. Or, if you want to see it this way: if something is as intelligent as a five-year old child then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I'm basically arguing for placing the bar high enough that when it is passed, we can be fairly certain we're not mistaken. >> I can't disagree more. Or maybe I actually agree. I find myself in that disposition often :)
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  > when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I strongly disagree. There are many reasons we might not recognize its intelligence, such as: - it operates on a different timescale than we do. - it operates at a different size scale than we do. - we don't understand its language, its methods, or its goals - Cartesian-like ideological blindness ("only humans have experience, all other things are automata, no matter how much they seem otherwise") Throughout human history, certain people have even managed to doubt the intelligence of other groups of humans.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    Except for "Cartesian blindness" (an interesting term) the situations where you say we wouldn't recognise intelligence are so far fantastical in the sense that they require a kind of intelligence that we can only imagine might exist outside the realm of our experience. But why should current debate have anything to do with all those situations? By analogy, suppose there exists a race of alien birds on a faraway planet that can fly in a way that we wouldn't recognise as flying. Perhaps they have an antigravity gland or poop exotic matter that sticks to their butts and lets them move around without touching the ground. Does that affect our ability to recognise flight when we see it on Earth? I don't think so. When you see e.g. an eagle, fly, you know it's flying, regardless of whether anything else is, or might be conceived as, flying, or not. Equally, does the possibility of an alien intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen before make any difference to how we recognise intelligence here on Earth and right now? The debate is about the intelligence of computers. Should we consider the possibility that computers are about to develop an alien kind of intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen? I know there's such a current of thought in various circles but it doesn't seem to be based on anything but wishful thinking (or dreadful thinking?). As to "Cartesian blindness" and racism etc - science is self-correcting. Even if we spend some time confused about what is and isn't intelligence, we get there in the end. The question is how we identify intelligence in the here and now, with what we know and understand about the world in the present.
    - persnickety 2y ago
stoperaticless 2y ago
> Your criterion would suggest the answer of "no" to any of those cases, even though those cover much of the same use cases as flying, and possibly some new, more interesting ones. Is it a problem though? Their existence are unrelated to how we categorize them. That matters only in communication. “if everybody agrees” lowers/removes the risk of miscommunication. If “hovercraft is flying” for you, but not for 50% the world, it makes it somewhat more difficult to communicate. (Easily solved with some qualifications, but that requires admission the questionability of “hovercraft is flying”) > you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting. You made an Interesting point - good food for thought. Counterpoint: It seems natural and useful that only similar things get to use same word. > And I don't think an AGI must be limited … Could you expand on why does it matter and what would be impacted by such lenient (or strict) classification?
- persnickety 2y ago
  I think it matters merely by the way we set our expectations relative to what is going to come - and what has come already. I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X (intelligence, understanding, whatever), so there's no need to consider it seriously. In the same vein: https://eschwitz.substack.com/p/strange-intelligence-strange-philosophy https://eschwitz.substack.com/p/strange-intelligence-strange...
  - stoperaticless 2y ago
    > I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X, so there's no need to consider it seriously. True. I doubt that field experts are directly affected by the naming, but indirect effect might come via less knowledgable (AI wise) financial decision makers. I see a risk that those decision makers (and society) would be mislead if they were promised AGI (based on their “strict” understanding, what’s in the movies), but received AGI (based on “relaxed” meaning). Informed consent is usually good. Though surely that can be resolved with more public discourse; maybe “relaxed” version will become the default expectation.

misnome 2y ago

"It's not flying, it's falling... with style"

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
I always fall with style and I always do it on purpose :|

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

There are going to be gray areas of course, but the point I'm making is that if it's hard to argue something isn't flying (respectively, intelligent) then it's probably flying (resp. intelligent). If it's hard to tell then it's probably not. I'm suggesting that intelligence, like flying, should be very immediately obvious. For example, you can't miss the fact that a five-year old child is intelligent and you can't miss the fact that a stone is not. There may be all sorts of things in between for which we can't be sure, or whose intelligence depends on definition, or point of view, etc. but when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. Or, if you want to see it this way: if something is as intelligent as a five-year old child then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I'm basically arguing for placing the bar high enough that when it is passed, we can be fairly certain we're not mistaken. >> I can't disagree more. Or maybe I actually agree. I find myself in that disposition often :)

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> when something is intelligent then it should leave us no doubt that it is. I strongly disagree. There are many reasons we might not recognize its intelligence, such as: - it operates on a different timescale than we do. - it operates at a different size scale than we do. - we don't understand its language, its methods, or its goals - Cartesian-like ideological blindness ("only humans have experience, all other things are automata, no matter how much they seem otherwise") Throughout human history, certain people have even managed to doubt the intelligence of other groups of humans.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  Except for "Cartesian blindness" (an interesting term) the situations where you say we wouldn't recognise intelligence are so far fantastical in the sense that they require a kind of intelligence that we can only imagine might exist outside the realm of our experience. But why should current debate have anything to do with all those situations? By analogy, suppose there exists a race of alien birds on a faraway planet that can fly in a way that we wouldn't recognise as flying. Perhaps they have an antigravity gland or poop exotic matter that sticks to their butts and lets them move around without touching the ground. Does that affect our ability to recognise flight when we see it on Earth? I don't think so. When you see e.g. an eagle, fly, you know it's flying, regardless of whether anything else is, or might be conceived as, flying, or not. Equally, does the possibility of an alien intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen before make any difference to how we recognise intelligence here on Earth and right now? The debate is about the intelligence of computers. Should we consider the possibility that computers are about to develop an alien kind of intelligence like no intelligence we have ever seen? I know there's such a current of thought in various circles but it doesn't seem to be based on anything but wishful thinking (or dreadful thinking?). As to "Cartesian blindness" and racism etc - science is self-correcting. Even if we spend some time confused about what is and isn't intelligence, we get there in the end. The question is how we identify intelligence in the here and now, with what we know and understand about the world in the present.
  - persnickety 2y ago

stoperaticless 2y ago

> Your criterion would suggest the answer of "no" to any of those cases, even though those cover much of the same use cases as flying, and possibly some new, more interesting ones. Is it a problem though? Their existence are unrelated to how we categorize them. That matters only in communication. “if everybody agrees” lowers/removes the risk of miscommunication. If “hovercraft is flying” for you, but not for 50% the world, it makes it somewhat more difficult to communicate. (Easily solved with some qualifications, but that requires admission the questionability of “hovercraft is flying”) > you're limiting the definition to that which is familiar, not that which is interesting. You made an Interesting point - good food for thought. Counterpoint: It seems natural and useful that only similar things get to use same word. > And I don't think an AGI must be limited … Could you expand on why does it matter and what would be impacted by such lenient (or strict) classification?

persnickety 2y ago
I think it matters merely by the way we set our expectations relative to what is going to come - and what has come already. I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X (intelligence, understanding, whatever), so there's no need to consider it seriously. In the same vein: https://eschwitz.substack.com/p/strange-intelligence-strange-philosophy https://eschwitz.substack.com/p/strange-intelligence-strange...
- stoperaticless 2y ago
  > I'm feeling an undercurrent of thought that is implying: this is not X, so there's no need to consider it seriously. True. I doubt that field experts are directly affected by the naming, but indirect effect might come via less knowledgable (AI wise) financial decision makers. I see a risk that those decision makers (and society) would be mislead if they were promised AGI (based on their “strict” understanding, what’s in the movies), but received AGI (based on “relaxed” meaning). Informed consent is usually good. Though surely that can be resolved with more public discourse; maybe “relaxed” version will become the default expectation.