leroy-is-here

7 ms·

31.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
A “superhuman” AI is just a machine, a very expensive one. It can be turned off and we control the outputs it has. Why would an AI have the ability to launch nuclear weapons unless we gave it a button? A “superhuman” intelligence is withou
32.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
We attempted the symbolic route of AI programming and it didn’t work because it is explosive in computation time and exhaustive to model in code. We can’t program our AI “models” now because they are based on chains of probabilities. Theref
33.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Arithmetic is separate from mathematics and should be taught as such. The spirit of mathematics should be kept because it is part of the human spirit, not because of any entitlement.
34.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
A developer does more than just write text and that’s all these AI programs can do: generate text. There’s not a single AI that can generate source, attempt to compile it, fix any source errors like the infamous missing semi-colon, and the
35.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think the generalization is more minute than that. Take mathematics for example, we can write that down and so we have. A lot of people “hate” math because they understand math as the shuffling of symbols. They hear “math” and think “arit
36.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
People really struggle writing simple essays. It takes a lot of work externalizing words from your own context inside your mind so that the sentences can be understood by themselves. It’s one of the reasons we used to teach “word problems”
37.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
If we wrote entire books in song, they could probably be memorized. Shakespeare attempted some of that work.
38.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Socrates’ main argument is that the word itself cannot teach but that it takes two parties which are often a student and a text instead of a student and a teacher. If Socrates sat down and explained to a student, he could impart not only th
39.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Verifying a measurement isn’t cheating. The word exists because it is memory externalized.
40.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Plato would still be controversial today. Imagine that you’re being told you only see images and you just imitate what you see.
41.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think that it is equally hard determining causes. We can clearly see differences between humans in the past and humans as we are today. Because humans are in the past, we easily think they are lesser and more stupid than our technological
42.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Yes, this has been a good refresher for me. I think you’re right, I am probably mis-stating some particular nuances.
43.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
So you think that AGI is a pre-requisite, a requirement, of unlocking a general, Earth-wide collective super-intelligence of humans?
44.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
The Von Neumann architecture is just a Turing Machine, simply a physical manifestation of one, a physical abstraction. My computer has a “tape” which is 64GB wide because I have 64GB of RAM. If we had infinite memory and infinite symbols (i
45.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
What if AGI just turns out to be exactly like the current human mind is now, except more accurate at digital calculation? What if we created AGI and then it was just lazy and wanted to read about action heroes all day?
46.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think the author is not taking language far enough. The animals which cannot speak do have a language, their language is just body language — one of actions. This is why when learning how to train dogs or cats, a human must learn how to c
47.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Our machines _can_ compute any Turing-computable function, except only up to some finite point because we must exist in this reality. Our numbers are infinite, but we do not argue they are not because someone was not able to count up to 999
48.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I thought about your comment a lot and here’s a way, way better illustration: You are completely correct that we can formalize any Turing Machine as a FSM but! this _must_ include input. Again, this is just pure simulation as you state. Aga
49.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think your hang-up is one of infinity. Just because we must deal the reality of the finite does not mean our computers are not _capable_. For example, the Turing Machine in our minds is able to run infinitely, but the computer plugged in
50.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think I agree with you, but maybe not for reasons you agree with. You see, the Turing Machine is a Form, in Plato's sense. I can formulate all of the programs and machines imaginable (at this current moment in our lifetime) with Turi
51.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Again, if your computer is not a Turing Machine, then it must be able to run programs that the Turing Machine class is not able.
52.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Because the "tape" is infinite, then the possibilities to name individual machines are infinite. I can create the number of a machine which is just a simple non-deterministic finite automata using a Turing Machine description. My
53.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I sign my name in cursive and do not think of it as feminine.
54.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I think it is articles like this one which are misleading. The Turing Machine was never “built” because it is just a class of machines, i.e. particular machines are of the Turing Machine class, Turing-complete. Because the class of machine
55.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I looked at the logo to see what kind of non-sense you were talking about, but you are absolutely correct. That logo really does belong on a shampoo bottle.
56.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Yes, if a machine can somehow start disobeying, it becomes intelligent to some degree. And yes, I want to walk that path because I believe that intelligence is not static and everyone can grow.
57.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
These thinking machines don't choose their thoughts. They are not blank slates, waiting patiently and listening. They are just binaries that only get executed when you run them. You have your causes backwards -- _we_ give it thoughts t
58.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
I have no idea what argument you are making. These machines, in our lifetime, as they are right now, cannot choose their thoughts. Literally, I want you to think of these machines as programs on the command line, because that's exactly
59.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
You are sentient because you can choose to ignore many of your inputs. You can choose to ignore people’s words and you can choose to ignore signals in your own body. A machine cannot choose to ignore it’s inputs. I disagree if you are takin
60.
by leroy-is-here 3y ago
Thinking machines, like ChatGPT, do not have any intelligence because they cannot choose their own thoughts. We give them thoughts to think by our inputs and commands. Therefore _we_ give them intelligence by our inputs. Any measure of (tex

More ›