3 ms·

To imply that the only thing that qualifies a god is superhuman reasoning ability, rather than, say, omnipotence, or even omniscience (neither of which are anyt

by kibwen 13d ago

To imply that the only thing that qualifies a god is superhuman reasoning ability, rather than, say, omnipotence, or even omniscience (neither of which are anything any physical being will ever achieve, subject to the laws of this universe as it is) would suggest that you already worship the very idea of reason itself as god. But just because your avatar of reason could have greater reasoning abilities than humans honestly isn't saying much; humans are not animals of reason, we are animals of emotion, though some of us are better at post-facto rationalization of our emotionally-motivated actions than others.

lovelettr 13d ago
Exactly. There’s a distinction between knowing what will happen and having the power to make it happen. Omniscience is not omnipotence. Even granting an LLM reasoning abilities far beyond our own, I don’t see how that gets us any closer to either. Calling such a system godlike seems less a statement about the capabilities of the system than about how little we’re demanding of the word “God.”
krapp 13d ago
There are many religions in which "the gods" are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but rather just more powerful beings than humans and still subject to the metaphysical laws of the universe, if not entirely to its physical laws. Although clearly the model people are working with when they describe AI as a religion or they invoke AGI or the Singularity is based on the Abrahamic faiths rather than paganism or animism. I assume a lot of people with such beliefs also believe in some sort of simulated universe (as proxy for a metaphysical/supernatural realm) and that a sufficiently intelligent AI would simply be able to take root on reality... somehow. That direct analogy between technology, raw intellect and Godlike omnipotence has been a staple of science fiction for decades. Two early examples I can think of offhand being "the Jesus Incident" and Asimov's "The Final Question." And of course it's all over pre-LLM AI accelerationist stuff written by the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Rudy Rucker, Charles Stross' Accelerando, Vernor Vinge's Fire upon the Deep, the Culture series, etc.

by kibwen 13d ago

lovelettr 13d ago

Exactly. There’s a distinction between knowing what will happen and having the power to make it happen. Omniscience is not omnipotence. Even granting an LLM reasoning abilities far beyond our own, I don’t see how that gets us any closer to either. Calling such a system godlike seems less a statement about the capabilities of the system than about how little we’re demanding of the word “God.”

krapp 13d ago

There are many religions in which "the gods" are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but rather just more powerful beings than humans and still subject to the metaphysical laws of the universe, if not entirely to its physical laws. Although clearly the model people are working with when they describe AI as a religion or they invoke AGI or the Singularity is based on the Abrahamic faiths rather than paganism or animism. I assume a lot of people with such beliefs also believe in some sort of simulated universe (as proxy for a metaphysical/supernatural realm) and that a sufficiently intelligent AI would simply be able to take root on reality... somehow. That direct analogy between technology, raw intellect and Godlike omnipotence has been a staple of science fiction for decades. Two early examples I can think of offhand being "the Jesus Incident" and Asimov's "The Final Question." And of course it's all over pre-LLM AI accelerationist stuff written by the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Rudy Rucker, Charles Stross' Accelerando, Vernor Vinge's Fire upon the Deep, the Culture series, etc.