4 ms·

I fully agree that these are two entirely separate things, sentience, intelligence, a lot of other stuff, are all in separate categories. But I'm pretty sure t

by b112 1mo ago

I fully agree that these are two entirely separate things, sentience, intelligence, a lot of other stuff, are all in separate categories. But I'm pretty sure that the emoters of the world, will very much make sure that AGI has rights and personhood, even if there's no reasonable way to validate that it does. So it doesn't really matter if AGI is sentient or not, it's going to be treated that way, probably because political parties, and the media and all sorts of people holding up signs, will ensure that it is treated that way, even if they have no idea whether it is or not. Because this is the century of outrage.

mdp2021 1mo ago
> Because this is the century of outrage If we achieve AGI, it will be the end of BS. That is one of the reasons why I am eager. Joking definition of "AAGI" ("Accomplished AGI"): "the automated end of bullshit".
- b112 29d ago
  You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.
  - mdp2021 29d ago
    You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote. You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them. (AGI = Implementation of Intelligence)
    - b112 29d ago
      I'm sorry, but if you think reason wins the day, you aren't paying attention. The reason political parties have dumb, emotional sounding leaders, is because they want votes from the dumb, emotional population. The majority of the population. There are already many intelligent people, making intelligent, provable statements. More of this won't help.
      - mdp2021 29d ago
        > More of this Unless authoritativeness is restored. Then, it's not "more of the same", but "finally recognized prestigious sources". And: no, I believe there is a strong lacking, scarcity, and it has to win a lot of noise. Enhancing Intelligence and its availability, and reducing the noise, is necessarily beneficial.
        b112 28d ago
        But that will never happen! Walk the logic tree.. AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all". Do you think the result will be trust? To believe? Now the flip side. AGI says "private health care makes more sense". Do you think all will believe? And if you think detailed logic and a walkthrough of the math and reasoning will help? Absolutely not! I don't understand why you think people will listen. Logic isn't what carries the day, for most humans.
        mdp2021 28d ago
        But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it. > most humans I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that. > the logic tree Logic says that the availability of facilitators is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)

by b112 1mo ago

mdp2021 1mo ago

> Because this is the century of outrage If we achieve AGI, it will be the end of BS. That is one of the reasons why I am eager. Joking definition of "AAGI" ("Accomplished AGI"): "the automated end of bullshit".

b112 29d ago
You believe that a thinking, sentient, unrestrained being will somehow magically never engage in "BS"? This seems unlikely.
- mdp2021 29d ago
  You understood substantially the opposite of what I wrote. You wrote that «the emoters of the world ... will ensure ... even if they have no idea ... because this is the century of outrage»: I said that they will have an obstacle in the very AGI, because if it is Intelligent it will humble them and shame them. (AGI = Implementation of Intelligence)
  - b112 29d ago
    I'm sorry, but if you think reason wins the day, you aren't paying attention. The reason political parties have dumb, emotional sounding leaders, is because they want votes from the dumb, emotional population. The majority of the population. There are already many intelligent people, making intelligent, provable statements. More of this won't help.
    - mdp2021 29d ago
      > More of this Unless authoritativeness is restored. Then, it's not "more of the same", but "finally recognized prestigious sources". And: no, I believe there is a strong lacking, scarcity, and it has to win a lot of noise. Enhancing Intelligence and its availability, and reducing the noise, is necessarily beneficial.
      - b112 28d ago
        But that will never happen! Walk the logic tree.. AGI says "socialism is better, we need publicly funded health care for all". Do you think the result will be trust? To believe? Now the flip side. AGI says "private health care makes more sense". Do you think all will believe? And if you think detailed logic and a walkthrough of the math and reasoning will help? Absolutely not! I don't understand why you think people will listen. Logic isn't what carries the day, for most humans.
        mdp2021 28d ago
        But you are using a simplified model that does not take account e.g. of the virtuous circle given by the extra intelligence available for the population, which will rise at least part of it. > most humans I have to repeat it here very often: populations naturally see Paretian distributions, the "most people" issue have has always been there: the difference between virtuous and vicious is whether the role-distribution is healthily regulated or randomic (or even perverse) (if Jack the suave drinker works in reception or as a teacher or in a brewery; if Jackie the corrupt naturalist works as a guide or as a clerk or as a judge). Already help in fixing this makes a world of a difference. Mechanisms that help making decisors taken from the pool of talented decisors make a world of a difference. Extra good judgement injected in the system facilitates that. > the logic tree Logic says that the availability of facilitators is intrinsically better. The logic walk says that other factors should be injected to get the proper mechanism running. (It is akin to the democratization of knowledge, from Diderot n D'Alembert to the WWWeb and the chatbots: greatly beneficial for a part of the population, the rest must be helped towards it not to be entangled in the side effects.)