4 ms·

Okay, so AI isn’t exceptional, but I’m also not exceptional. I run on the same tech base as any old chimpanzee, but at one point our differences in degree turne

by wvbdmp 1y ago

Okay, so AI isn’t exceptional, but I’m also not exceptional. I run on the same tech base as any old chimpanzee, but at one point our differences in degree turned into one of us remaining “normal” and the other burning the entire planet. Whether the particular current AI tech is it or not, I have yet to be convinced that the singularity is practically impossible, and as long as things develop in the opposite direction, I get increasingly unnerved.

mallowdram 1y ago
The singularity will involve quite a bit more complexity than binary counting, arbitrary words and images, and prediction. These were mirages that will be wiping out both Wall Street and our ecology.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tempodox 1y ago
We’ll manage to make our own survival on this planet less probable, even without the help of “AI”.
- johnnienaked 1y ago
  The cult of efficiency will end in the only perfectly efficient world--one without us.
  - Bendy 1y ago
    I’m fed up of hearing that nonsense, no it won’t. Efficiency is a human-defined measure of observed outcomes versus desired outcomes. This is subject to change as much as we are. If we do optimize ourselves to death, it’ll be because it’s what we ultimately want to happen. That may be true for some people but certainly not everyone.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      I think the concern is that humans have very poor track record of defining efficiency let alone implementing solutions that serve it.
    - johnnienaked 1y ago
      The equilibrium of ecology, without human interference, could be considered perfect efficiency. It's only when we get in there with our theories about mass production and consumption that we muss it up. We seem to forget that our well-being isn't self-determined, but dependent on the environment. But, like George Carlin said, "the Earth isn't going anywhere...WE ARE!" It's quite telling how much faith you put in humanity though, you sound fully bought in.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  I don't know what reality you're living in, but there are more people on this planet than ever in history and most of them are quite well fed.
  - jebarker 1y ago
    And they have nuclear weapons and technology that may be destabilizing the ecosystem that supports their life. It’s wrong to commit to either end of this argument, we don’t know how it’ll play out, but the potential for humans drastically reducing our own numbers is very much still real.
measurablefunc 1y ago
If you use non-constructive reasoning¹ then you can argue for basically any outcome & even convince yourself that it is inevitable. The basic example is as follows, there is no scientific or physical principle that can prevent the birth of someone much worse than Hitler & therefore if people keep having children one of those children will inevitably be someone who will cause unimaginable death & destruction. My recommendation is to avoid non-constructive inevitability arguments using our current ignorant state of understanding of physical laws as the main premise b/c it's possible to reach any conclusion from that premise & convince yourself that the conclusion is inevitable. ¹https://gemini.google.com/share/d9b505fef250 https://gemini.google.com/share/d9b505fef250
- jackphilson 1y ago
  Irrelevant but I like this pattern of using Gemini (or AI outputs in general) as sources. Please continue to do so and I encourage any readers to also adopt this pattern. I will also try to implement this pattern.
  - measurablefunc 1y ago
    The sources are in the report. Gemini provides actual references for all the claims made. You'd know that if you actually looked but lack of intellectual rigor is expected when people are afraid of actually scrutinizing their beliefs of non-constructive inevitability.
    - jrave 1y ago
      maybe you misread the post you‘re answering to here or are you suspecting sarcasm? the poster commended your usage of the footnote with the gemini convo as far as i can tell?
      - measurablefunc 1y ago
        Laid it on a little too thick to be sincere & more generally I don't comment on internet forums to be complimented on my response style. Address the substance of my arguments or just save yourself the keystrokes.
Mallowram 1y ago
[dead]
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
ehnto 1y ago
I don't think LLMs are building towards an AI singularity at least. I also wonder if we can even power an AI singularity. I guess it depends on what the technology is. But it is taking us more energy than really reasonable (in my opinion) just to produce and run frontier LLMs. LLMs are this really weird blend of stunningly powerful, yet with a very clear inadequacy in terms of sentient behaviour. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that, is that it did not take us consuming the entirety of human textual knowledge, to form a much stronger world model.
- michaelhoney 1y ago
  True, but our "training" has been a billion years of evolution and multimodal input every waking moment of our lives. We come heavily optimised for reality.
- ACCount37 1y ago
  I see no reason why not. There was a lot of "LLMs are fundamentally incapable of X" going around - where "X" is something that LLMs are promptly demonstrated to be at least somewhat capable of, after a few tweaks or some specialized training. This pattern has repeated enough times to make me highly skeptical of any such claims. It's true that LLMs have this jagged capability profile - less so than any AI before them, but much more so than humans. But that just sets up a capability overhang. Because if AI gets to "as good as humans" at its low points, the advantage at its high points is going to be crushing.

by wvbdmp 1y ago

mallowdram 1y ago

The singularity will involve quite a bit more complexity than binary counting, arbitrary words and images, and prediction. These were mirages that will be wiping out both Wall Street and our ecology.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

tempodox 1y ago

We’ll manage to make our own survival on this planet less probable, even without the help of “AI”.

johnnienaked 1y ago
The cult of efficiency will end in the only perfectly efficient world--one without us.
- Bendy 1y ago
  I’m fed up of hearing that nonsense, no it won’t. Efficiency is a human-defined measure of observed outcomes versus desired outcomes. This is subject to change as much as we are. If we do optimize ourselves to death, it’ll be because it’s what we ultimately want to happen. That may be true for some people but certainly not everyone.
  - scotty79 1y ago
    I think the concern is that humans have very poor track record of defining efficiency let alone implementing solutions that serve it.
  - johnnienaked 1y ago
    The equilibrium of ecology, without human interference, could be considered perfect efficiency. It's only when we get in there with our theories about mass production and consumption that we muss it up. We seem to forget that our well-being isn't self-determined, but dependent on the environment. But, like George Carlin said, "the Earth isn't going anywhere...WE ARE!" It's quite telling how much faith you put in humanity though, you sound fully bought in.
chrisco255 1y ago
I don't know what reality you're living in, but there are more people on this planet than ever in history and most of them are quite well fed.
- jebarker 1y ago
  And they have nuclear weapons and technology that may be destabilizing the ecosystem that supports their life. It’s wrong to commit to either end of this argument, we don’t know how it’ll play out, but the potential for humans drastically reducing our own numbers is very much still real.

measurablefunc 1y ago

If you use non-constructive reasoning¹ then you can argue for basically any outcome & even convince yourself that it is inevitable. The basic example is as follows, there is no scientific or physical principle that can prevent the birth of someone much worse than Hitler & therefore if people keep having children one of those children will inevitably be someone who will cause unimaginable death & destruction. My recommendation is to avoid non-constructive inevitability arguments using our current ignorant state of understanding of physical laws as the main premise b/c it's possible to reach any conclusion from that premise & convince yourself that the conclusion is inevitable. ¹https://gemini.google.com/share/d9b505fef250 https://gemini.google.com/share/d9b505fef250

jackphilson 1y ago
Irrelevant but I like this pattern of using Gemini (or AI outputs in general) as sources. Please continue to do so and I encourage any readers to also adopt this pattern. I will also try to implement this pattern.
- measurablefunc 1y ago
  The sources are in the report. Gemini provides actual references for all the claims made. You'd know that if you actually looked but lack of intellectual rigor is expected when people are afraid of actually scrutinizing their beliefs of non-constructive inevitability.
  - jrave 1y ago
    maybe you misread the post you‘re answering to here or are you suspecting sarcasm? the poster commended your usage of the footnote with the gemini convo as far as i can tell?
    - measurablefunc 1y ago
      Laid it on a little too thick to be sincere & more generally I don't comment on internet forums to be complimented on my response style. Address the substance of my arguments or just save yourself the keystrokes.

Mallowram 1y ago

[dead]

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

ehnto 1y ago

I don't think LLMs are building towards an AI singularity at least. I also wonder if we can even power an AI singularity. I guess it depends on what the technology is. But it is taking us more energy than really reasonable (in my opinion) just to produce and run frontier LLMs. LLMs are this really weird blend of stunningly powerful, yet with a very clear inadequacy in terms of sentient behaviour. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that, is that it did not take us consuming the entirety of human textual knowledge, to form a much stronger world model.

michaelhoney 1y ago
True, but our "training" has been a billion years of evolution and multimodal input every waking moment of our lives. We come heavily optimised for reality.
ACCount37 1y ago
I see no reason why not. There was a lot of "LLMs are fundamentally incapable of X" going around - where "X" is something that LLMs are promptly demonstrated to be at least somewhat capable of, after a few tweaks or some specialized training. This pattern has repeated enough times to make me highly skeptical of any such claims. It's true that LLMs have this jagged capability profile - less so than any AI before them, but much more so than humans. But that just sets up a capability overhang. Because if AI gets to "as good as humans" at its low points, the advantage at its high points is going to be crushing.