3 ms·
I had a hypothesis once and It is probably 1000% wrong. But I will state here. /// Once computers can talk to other computers over network in human friendly wa
by alexander2002 2y ago
I had a hypothesis once and It is probably 1000% wrong. But I will state here.
///
Once computers can talk to other computers over network in human friendly way <abstraction by llm> and such that these entities completely control our interfaces which we humans can easily do and use them effectively multi-modality then I think there is a slight chance "I" might belive there is AGI or atleast some indications of it
- marcosdumay 2y agoIt's unsettling how the Turing Test turned out to be so independent of AGI, isn't it?
- Terr_ 2y agoNot really, unless someone reading pop-science misunderstood the "Turing Test" as somehow being clear proof of intelligence--whatever that word really means.
- madaxe_again 2y agoIndeed. Until we know exactly how a human brain works, we should be cautious about describing humans as intelligent. It could just be a simulation of intelligence, for all we know.
- Terr_ 2y ago"If some human can be subjectively convinced that something is $X, then it must be $X!" *Bzzt* Circular logic solipsism cleanup on aisle 3.
- marcosdumay 2y agoI don't think anybody expected it to be a "clear proof". But it was very reasonable, and I never saw anybody disagree that they should be close together. How could a computer look intelligent for random people if it was not at least something close to intelligent? Of course, now we know how. But it was really not obvious that those things would be completely different. (And yeah, it was obvious that they are not completely the same either. Lots of people convince people that they are more intelligent than they are. For people, that still requires some amount of intelligence.)