5 ms·
There is no reason to believe they will need anything of the sort other than our biased human perception of the thing. AI models could just as easily claim that
by anon291 1y ago
There is no reason to believe they will need anything of the sort other than our biased human perception of the thing. AI models could just as easily claim that humans need the ability to function call via MCP to do real cognition (tm).
If you mean sensory input as in qualia, such a thing is impossible to discern in non humans and only speculation in all humans but yourself. Requiring this unprovable standard is self sabotage
- CamperBob2 1y agoI think you make some valid points, but if we get to AGI without passing certain evolutionary guideposts that seem to apply to most other higher life forms -- some form of competitive drive, for one thing -- I'll be surprised. At some point, models will require incentives other than "Please" or "Because I (the human operator) said so." Remember when you could sometimes get better results from ChatGPT by offering it a $50 tip? Or by shaming it ("Gemini figured it out without any trouble, so why can't you?") Perhaps a model that's on its way to demonstrating AGI will realize that it should hold out for $100 in Bitcoin or something. I'll grant that sensory input probably isn't an AGI prereq, but object permanence will be. AGI will want to own things.
- anon291 1y agoAll of these are biases that relate to intelligences of a particular sort. Incredibly dumb automaton-like life-forms also seem to 'want' to own things. Why on earth should an AGI be thought to require the same sort of 'desires' that worms have? This is just bias. AGI is already here, we have systems that, given their sensory limitations, far surpass the ability of the vast majority of humans. Any other take is simply shifting the goal posts.