2 ms·

You’re anthropomorphizing too much.

card_zero 1y ago
These postulated entities are by definition people. Not humans, because they lack the biology, but that's a detail. If you think they're going to be trained on all the world's data, that's still supposing them to be an extension of AI. No, they'll have to pick up their knowledge culturally, the same way everybody else does, by watching cartoons - I mean by interactions with mentors. They might have their own culture, but only the same way that existing groups of people with a shared characteristic do, and they can't weave it out of air; it has to derive from existing culture. There's a potential for an AGI to "think faster", but I'm skeptical about what that amounts to in practice or how much use it would be to them.
- tavavex 1y ago
  > These postulated entities are by definition people. Why? Does your definition postulate that people are the only thing in the universe that can measure up to us? Or the inverse, that every entity as sentient and intelligent as us must be called a person? My opinion is that a lot of what makes us like this is physiological. Unless the developers go out of their way to simulate these things, a hypothetical AGI won't be similar to us no matter how much human-made content it ingests. And why would they do that? Why would you want to implement physical pain, or fear, or human needs, or biases and fallacies driven from our primal instincts? Would implementing all these things even be possible at the point where we find an inroad towards AGI? All of that might require creating a comprehensive human brain simulation, not just a self-learning machine. I think it's almost certain that, while there would be some mutual understanding, an AGI would almost certainly feel like a completely different species to us.
  - card_zero 1y ago
    The latter, that intelligence is one thing, and that to imagine that an artificial intelligence would be some kind of beyond-intelligence, and would be a beyond-person, is to needlessly multiply entities. The assumption should be there's only (potential to create) people like us, because to imagine beyond-people is to get mystical about it. "Beyond-rats" is what I say to that. I have sympathy with the point about physiology, though, I think being non-biological has to feel very different. You're released from a lot of the human condition, you're not driven by hormones or genes, your plans aren't hijacked to get you to reproduce or eat more or whatever animal thing, you don't have the same needs. That's all liable to alienate you from the meat-based folk. However, you're still a person.

These postulated entities are by definition people. Not humans, because they lack the biology, but that's a detail. If you think they're going to be trained on all the world's data, that's still supposing them to be an extension of AI. No, they'll have to pick up their knowledge culturally, the same way everybody else does, by watching cartoons - I mean by interactions with mentors. They might have their own culture, but only the same way that existing groups of people with a shared characteristic do, and they can't weave it out of air; it has to derive from existing culture. There's a potential for an AGI to "think faster", but I'm skeptical about what that amounts to in practice or how much use it would be to them.

tavavex 1y ago
> These postulated entities are by definition people. Why? Does your definition postulate that people are the only thing in the universe that can measure up to us? Or the inverse, that every entity as sentient and intelligent as us must be called a person? My opinion is that a lot of what makes us like this is physiological. Unless the developers go out of their way to simulate these things, a hypothetical AGI won't be similar to us no matter how much human-made content it ingests. And why would they do that? Why would you want to implement physical pain, or fear, or human needs, or biases and fallacies driven from our primal instincts? Would implementing all these things even be possible at the point where we find an inroad towards AGI? All of that might require creating a comprehensive human brain simulation, not just a self-learning machine. I think it's almost certain that, while there would be some mutual understanding, an AGI would almost certainly feel like a completely different species to us.
- card_zero 1y ago
  The latter, that intelligence is one thing, and that to imagine that an artificial intelligence would be some kind of beyond-intelligence, and would be a beyond-person, is to needlessly multiply entities. The assumption should be there's only (potential to create) people like us, because to imagine beyond-people is to get mystical about it. "Beyond-rats" is what I say to that. I have sympathy with the point about physiology, though, I think being non-biological has to feel very different. You're released from a lot of the human condition, you're not driven by hormones or genes, your plans aren't hijacked to get you to reproduce or eat more or whatever animal thing, you don't have the same needs. That's all liable to alienate you from the meat-based folk. However, you're still a person.