4 ms·
"This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly
by AnimalMuppet 29d ago
"This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered."
Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.
And: There's going to be a shortage of everything, because all the production of physical stuff is going to go into producing robots? Are we all going to buy these robots? How are we going to do so, if everything else is getting more expensive? Are we going to buy robots instead of everything else? Why? Are the robots going to do everything we want done, so that we don't need, for example, a dishwasher and a washing machine?
Or are we still going to need the washing machine, but the robot will fold the clothes? That's nice (really!) but it's a luxury, not a need. Are they really going to sell enough of them to eat into the ability to manufacture car parts?
- charlieyu1 29d agoDo humans have free will?
- krapp 29d agoYes.
- david-gpu 29d agoOkay, let us see your homework.
- krapp 29d agowhat homework?
- david-gpu 29d agoPrecisely.
- krapp 29d agoPrecisely what? I don't see you citing any sources.
- AnimalMuppet 29d agoNo, but you're the one who made the initial claim. Under normal debate rules, you have the burden of proof.
- david-gpu 29d agoYeah, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, other than it is a complex subject where people tend to have strong opinions with little to back them up.
- krapp 29d agoThis isn't a formal debate, this is a discussion forum. There is no burden of proof here.
- AnimalMuppet 29d agoEven so, it feels a bit unfair for you to make the initial claim, the other guy disagrees, and then you demand proof from him, when you have supplied none and you went first. Not a formal debate, still not quite cricket, as the Brits would say.
- 0134340 29d agoThat's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
- krapp 29d agoIf you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
- 0134340 29d agoI said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
- krapp 29d ago>Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise. Nothing at all is actually being proven either way. That's kind of the point.
- ZiiS 29d agoIf we don't it dosn't mater; if we do we do.
- EA-3167 29d agoBy far the most common modern article format I see that has literally no merit is in the format: "What if we imagine how a trend might develop in the future if the growth of that trend is never modified by changing circumstances?" Yep, it's pretty compelling reading, what if we really do all just decide to become paperclip maximizers? What if the economy never breaks down along the way? What if what if what if... all presented as "THE FUTURE WILL BE BLEAK!" It's exhausting and thoughtless, completely devoid of value and the counterpoint is always, "You know that isn't how anything works right?"
- bigstrat2003 29d ago> Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first. Also, the second question is answered in the negative for anyone who actually looks at what models do rather than what their makers claim they do. Models are very stupid.
- dist-epoch 29d agoTurns out we were all wrong assuming mathematicians are some of the most intelligent people. Very stupid models can prove math things that the smartest humans failed to for decades.
- civvv 29d agoHardly an accurate statement. Harnessed LLM’s are clearly capable at finding an answer to a mathematical problem in a pool of existing attempts by mathematicians, but I highly doubt that it will be able to solve math that it does not have massive amounts of pre-existing training data for. Which means we are entirely dependent upon intelligent mathematicians to continue their work and implement LLM’s as what it is: a great tool.