5 ms·
This is where it networks itself into a hive mind with each AI node specializing in some task or function networked with hyper speed data buses. Humans do the s
by junto 1y ago
This is where it networks itself into a hive mind with each AI node specializing in some task or function networked with hyper speed data buses. Humans do the same both within their own brains and as cohesive teams, who cross check and validate each other. At some point it becomes self aware.
- 0points 1y ago> At some point it becomes self aware. This is where you lost me. Always the same supernatural beliefs, not even an attempt of an explanation in sight.
- kylebenzle 1y agoNo ghost in the machine is necessary, what op here is proposing is self evident and an inevitable eventuality. We are not saying a LLM just, "wakes up" some day but a self improving machine will eventually be built and that machine will be definition build better ones.
- deadbabe 1y agoBetter at what
- GolfPopper 1y agoPaperclip maximization.
- hollerith 1y agoBetter at avoiding human oversight and better at achieving whatever meaningless goal (or optimization target) was unintentionally given to it by the lab that created it.
- deadbabe 1y agoSo better at nothing that actually matters.
- hollerith 1y agoI disagree. I expect AI to make people's lives better (probably much better) but then an AI model will be created that undergoes a profound increase in cognitive capabilities, then we all die or something else terrible happens because no one knows how to retain control over an AI that is much more all-around capable than people are. Maybe the process by which it undergoes the profound capability increase is to "improve itself by rewriting its own code", as described in the OP.
- deadbabe 1y agoJust stop using it.
- glenstein 1y ago>what op here is proposing is self evident and an inevitable eventuality. Well I for one, would dispute the idea that AI machines interfacing with each other over networks is all it takes to achieve self awareness, much less that it's "self evident" or "inevitable." In a very trivial sense they already are, in that Claude can tell you what version it is, and agents have some ended notion of their own capabilities. In a much more important sense they are not, because they don't have any number of salient properties, like dynamic self-initiating of own goals or super-duper intelligence, or human like internal consciousness, or whichever other thing is your preferred salient property. >We are not saying a LLM just, "wakes up" some day I mean, that did seem to be exactly what they were saying. You network together a bunch of AIs, and they embark on a shared community project of self improvement and that path leads "self awareness." But that skips over all the details. What if their notions of self-improvement converge on a stable equilibrium, the way that constantly re-processing an image eventually gets rid of the image and just leaves algorithmic noise? There are a lot of things that do and don't count as open-ended self improvement, and even achieving that might not have anything to do with the important things we think we connote by "self awareness".
- NetRunnerSu 1y agoOh, Web3 AI Agents Are Accelerating Skynet's Awakening https://dmf-archive.github.io/docs/concepts/IRES/ https://dmf-archive.github.io/docs/concepts/IRES/
- UltraSane 1y agoSentience as an emergent property of sufficiently complex brains is the exact opposite of "supernatural".
- altruios 1y agoComplex learning behavior is far lower than a neuron. Chemical chains inside cells 'learn' according to stimuli. Learning how to replicate systems that have chemistry is going to be hard, we haven't come close to doing so. Even the achievement of recording the neural mappings of a dead rat capture the map, but not the traffic. More likely we'll develop machine-brain interfaces before machine self-awareness/sentience. But that is just my opinion.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y agoI think this comes down to whether the chemistry is providing some kind of deep value or is just being used by evolution to produce a version of generic stochastic behavior that could be trivially reproduced on silicon. My intuition is the latter- it would be a surprising coincidence if some complicated electro-chemical reaction behavior provided an essential building block for human intelligence that would otherwise be impossible. But, from a best-of-all-possible-worlds perspective, surprising coincidences that are necessary to observe coincidences and label them as surprising aren't crazy. At least not more crazy than the fact that slightly adjusted physical constants would prevent the universe from existing.
- altruios 1y ago> My intuition is the latter- it would be a surprising coincidence if some complicated electro-chemical reaction behavior provided an essential building block for human intelligence that would otherwise be impossible. Well, I wouldn't say impossible: just that BMI's are probably first. Then probably wetware/bio-hardware sentience, before silicon sentience happens. My point is the mechanisms for sentience/consciousness/experience are not well understood. I would suspect the electro-chemical reactions inside every cell to be critical to replicating those cells functions. You would never try to replicate a car never looking under the hood! You might make something that looks like a car, seems to act like a car, but has a drastically simpler engine (hamsters on wheels), and have designs that support that bad architecture (like making the car lighter) with unforeseen consequences (the car flips in a light breeze). The metaphor transfers nicely to machine intelligence: I think.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y agoI don't see how self-awareness should be supernatural unless you already have supernatural beliefs about it. It's clearly natural- it exists within humans who exist within the physical universe. Alternatively, if you believe that self-awareness is supernatural in humans, it doesn't make a ton of sense to criticize someone else for introducing their own unfounded supernatural beliefs.
- glenstein 1y agoI don't think they are saying self-awareness is supernatural. They're charging the commenter they are replying to with asserting a process of self-awareness in a manner so devoid of specific characterization that it seems to fit the definition of a supernatural event. In this context it's a criticism, not an endorsement.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y agoIs it just the wrong choice of word? There's nothing supernatural about a system moving towards increased capabilities and picking up self-awareness on the way; that happened in the natural world. Nothing supernatural about technology improving faster than evolution either. If they meant "ill-defined" or similar, sure.
- glenstein 1y ago>There's nothing supernatural about a system moving towards increased capabilities and picking up self-awareness on the way There absolutely is if you handwave away all the specificity. The natural world runs on the specificity of physical mechanisms. With brains, in a broad brush way you can say self-awareness was "picked up along the way", but that's because we've done an incredible amount of work building out the evolutionary history and building out our understanding of specific physical mechanisms. It is that work that verifies the story. It's also something we know is already here and can look back at retrospectively, so we know it got here somehow. But projecting forward into a future that hasn't happened, while skipping over all the details doesn't buy you sentience, self-awareness, or whatever your preferred salient property is. I understand supernatural as a label for a thing simply happening without accountability to naturalistic explanation, which is a fitting term for this form of explanation that doesn't do any explaining.
- junto 1y agoSorry, it needed a /s at the end. It was a skynet joke.