pillsburysoldier posted:

Doesnt elon's das hate him

euphronius posted:

To the extent a computer “thinks” (in the sense marketers use the term) those “thoughts” are “merely” the thoughts and actions of the programmers and workers stored in the technology combined with the actions and thoughts of the person using it

R.L. Stine posted:

i want a slur for ai so i can use it guilt free

R.L. Stine posted:

i want a slur for ai so i can use it guilt free

redshirt posted:

What are you doing Elon?

dr_rat posted:

Well we know he's not making up slurs against ai. He's far too terrified of it for that.

Lol, like the chip heads will care when they take over earth, all us soggy brains are going in the blender if we were polite to those code cocks, or not.

redshirt posted:

WITNESS ME!

Monica Bellucci posted:

Do you have a surname?

kazil posted:

Roko's rear end-a-lick

what's that dumb rear end AI gonna do? Torture me for all eternity?

kazil posted:

Roko's rear end-a-lick

what's that dumb rear end AI gonna do? Torture me for all eternity?

Mozi posted:

more like ai-yai-yai

spanky the dolphin posted:

Avirosb posted:

We have such sights to show you

dr_rat posted:

Man the Hellraiser movies really got lame with their coenobites.

spanky the dolphin posted:

sugar free jazz posted:

holy poo poo…….is this true? could gpt 6 or even 8 create a civilization ending virus???

steinrokkan posted:

She definitely has a crawlspace full of hobo corpses

Also are you morons seriously trying to have a debate on the merits of ai

MrQwerty posted:

Computers don't think

Juul-Whip posted:

being able to count very quickly is not a form of intelligence

euphronius posted:

The computer is not “doing math”. It doesn’t even exist in the sense you are fooling yourself into thinking.

I swear to god you must be a marketer

Evilreaver posted:

The big problem with discussions like this is that people speak past each other. No, they don't think. No, they don't have goals. That is correct.

However, they do have stimulus/response mechanisms, which can be condensed to plain-language terms like 'goals'. The enemies in Doom do not have the 'goal' of killing the player, they have the coding "I see the player --> I will shoot at the player". Thus, the enemy exhibits behavior indistinguishable from an agent that has the goal of killing the player. Can we agree on that? No, probably not, because they are hard-coded in their behaviors, not intelligently but dumbly/scriptedly choosing to move/shoot in very specific ways. But I'm going to call this a 'goal' anyway-- the programmer/developer wants the bot to threaten the player, and gives them tools to (appear to) do so. Thus, goals can be ascribed to the human programmer, even if the computer program does not have the capability to have goals itself.



So, if a bot in a game has the goal "find a firing line to lob this grenade directly into the player", a computer will have the ability to calculate the firing trajectory of the grenade down to float precision, within milliseconds, faster than a human. This goes for literally any problem like firing rockets into space in real life, maintaining autopilot in aircraft, or maintaining fuel injectors in a car engine. Thus, I'm going to say computers can "do math" faster than humans. The fact I have to define this term is kind of insane to me. Like, what the gently caress are you even talking about that computers can't do math. Nonsensical statement.

As I said earlier, you do not have to have classic sentience/sapience in order to problem-solve. If you have a properly defined problem, you can find a solution. I don't want to say this because I feel like I need to define every word in the sentence, but a computer can do basically the same thing- either through rote programming (current-gen game bots who can pathfind to objectives and calculate lead/etc), through guessing/hallucinating (current gen wildly-unreliable LLMs), or through other machine learning methods such as gradient descent and conditional learning.

So consider the following hypothetical- you and a computer have opposing goals. It may be simple, like "Human player wins this game of chess" against "Computer player wins this game of chess". Hopefully we can agree that in this situation the computer has a huge advantage in completing its goal compared to the human. Right? We can agree that even absent human level intelligence, there are goals that if a human and computer program find themselves in conflict, the computer can be at an advantage. Like, I hope we can agree on that.

As computer power grows, these capabilities grow, and there are fewer and fewer areas where humans have a decided advantage. It is not unreasonable to be wary of this growth and the fact that the speeds involved can mean that a runaway program can create problems faster than they can be foreseen and prevented. Consider something stupid like accidentally running a reformat action on your computer- by the time you realized what the computer is doing, it's too late, your data is gone, and the computer did not need intelligent thought on its own accord to do it.



Like I said earlier, AGI is not really the issue. It is far more likely that an algorithm like YouTube's pewdiepipeline creates political turmoil, or that a high-frequency trading algorithm goes haywire and collapses the stock market, or that a poorly-implemented power grid managing system locks down our grid and prevents it from being fixed in a timely manner. None of these issues require human-level understanding of the world-- they only require a programmer to be poo poo at coding. If a corporation or government gives a poorly-coded system control of something important, THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT AI PRESENTS. There doesn't even have to be malice involved!

digital penitence posted:

Ah yeah, maybe it was there people found it! Honestly it's even funnier if he rented it and didn't even buy it.

Evilreaver posted:

Like I said earlier, AGI is not really the issue. It is far more likely that an algorithm like YouTube's pewdiepipeline creates political turmoil, or that a high-frequency trading algorithm goes haywire and collapses the stock market, or that a poorly-implemented power grid managing system locks down our grid and prevents it from being fixed in a timely manner. None of these issues require human-level understanding of the world-- they only require a programmer to be poo poo at coding. If a corporation or government gives a poorly-coded system control of something important, THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT AI PRESENTS. There doesn't even have to be malice involved!

Bip Roberts posted:

Chill dawg

MrQwerty posted:

Lol having a philosophy of mind argument about AI in the thread about a man so terrified of AI he gives himself nightmares about it all night every night, then wakes up and goes, "I must make it a reality so I may master it"

Evilreaver posted:

The big problem with discussions like this is that people speak past each other. No, they don't think. No, they don't have goals. That is correct.

However, they do have stimulus/response mechanisms, which can be condensed to plain-language terms like 'goals'. The enemies in Doom do not have the 'goal' of killing the player, they have the coding "I see the player --> I will shoot at the player". Thus, the enemy exhibits behavior indistinguishable from an agent that has the goal of killing the player. Can we agree on that? No, probably not, because they are hard-coded in their behaviors, not intelligently but dumbly/scriptedly choosing to move/shoot in very specific ways. But I'm going to call this a 'goal' anyway-- the programmer/developer wants the bot to threaten the player, and gives them tools to (appear to) do so. Thus, goals can be ascribed to the human programmer, even if the computer program does not have the capability to have goals itself.



So, if a bot in a game has the goal "find a firing line to lob this grenade directly into the player", a computer will have the ability to calculate the firing trajectory of the grenade down to float precision, within milliseconds, faster than a human. This goes for literally any problem like firing rockets into space in real life, maintaining autopilot in aircraft, or maintaining fuel injectors in a car engine. Thus, I'm going to say computers can "do math" faster than humans. The fact I have to define this term is kind of insane to me. Like, what the gently caress are you even talking about that computers can't do math. Nonsensical statement.

As I said earlier, you do not have to have classic sentience/sapience in order to problem-solve. If you have a properly defined problem, you can find a solution. I don't want to say this because I feel like I need to define every word in the sentence, but a computer can do basically the same thing- either through rote programming (current-gen game bots who can pathfind to objectives and calculate lead/etc), through guessing/hallucinating (current gen wildly-unreliable LLMs), or through other machine learning methods such as gradient descent and conditional learning.

So consider the following hypothetical- you and a computer have opposing goals. It may be simple, like "Human player wins this game of chess" against "Computer player wins this game of chess". Hopefully we can agree that in this situation the computer has a huge advantage in completing its goal compared to the human. Right? We can agree that even absent human level intelligence, there are goals that if a human and computer program find themselves in conflict, the computer can be at an advantage. Like, I hope we can agree on that.

As computer power grows, these capabilities grow, and there are fewer and fewer areas where humans have a decided advantage. It is not unreasonable to be wary of this growth and the fact that the speeds involved can mean that a runaway program can create problems faster than they can be foreseen and prevented. Consider something stupid like accidentally running a reformat action on your computer- by the time you realized what the computer is doing, it's too late, your data is gone, and the computer did not need intelligent thought on its own accord to do it.



Like I said earlier, AGI is not really the issue. It is far more likely that an algorithm like YouTube's pewdiepipeline creates political turmoil, or that a high-frequency trading algorithm goes haywire and collapses the stock market, or that a poorly-implemented power grid managing system locks down our grid and prevents it from being fixed in a timely manner. None of these issues require human-level understanding of the world-- they only require a programmer to be poo poo at coding. If a corporation or government gives a poorly-coded system control of something important, THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT AI PRESENTS. There doesn't even have to be malice involved!

Evilreaver posted:

The big problem with discussions like this is that people speak past each other. No, they don't think. No, they don't have goals. That is correct.

However, they do have stimulus/response mechanisms, which can be condensed to plain-language terms like 'goals'. The enemies in Doom do not have the 'goal' of killing the player, they have the coding "I see the player --> I will shoot at the player". Thus, the enemy exhibits behavior indistinguishable from an agent that has the goal of killing the player. Can we agree on that? No, probably not, because they are hard-coded in their behaviors, not intelligently but dumbly/scriptedly choosing to move/shoot in very specific ways. But I'm going to call this a 'goal' anyway-- the programmer/developer wants the bot to threaten the player, and gives them tools to (appear to) do so. Thus, goals can be ascribed to the human programmer, even if the computer program does not have the capability to have goals itself.



So, if a bot in a game has the goal "find a firing line to lob this grenade directly into the player", a computer will have the ability to calculate the firing trajectory of the grenade down to float precision, within milliseconds, faster than a human. This goes for literally any problem like firing rockets into space in real life, maintaining autopilot in aircraft, or maintaining fuel injectors in a car engine. Thus, I'm going to say computers can "do math" faster than humans. The fact I have to define this term is kind of insane to me. Like, what the gently caress are you even talking about that computers can't do math. Nonsensical statement.

As I said earlier, you do not have to have classic sentience/sapience in order to problem-solve. If you have a properly defined problem, you can find a solution. I don't want to say this because I feel like I need to define every word in the sentence, but a computer can do basically the same thing- either through rote programming (current-gen game bots who can pathfind to objectives and calculate lead/etc), through guessing/hallucinating (current gen wildly-unreliable LLMs), or through other machine learning methods such as gradient descent and conditional learning.

So consider the following hypothetical- you and a computer have opposing goals. It may be simple, like "Human player wins this game of chess" against "Computer player wins this game of chess". Hopefully we can agree that in this situation the computer has a huge advantage in completing its goal compared to the human. Right? We can agree that even absent human level intelligence, there are goals that if a human and computer program find themselves in conflict, the computer can be at an advantage. Like, I hope we can agree on that.

As computer power grows, these capabilities grow, and there are fewer and fewer areas where humans have a decided advantage. It is not unreasonable to be wary of this growth and the fact that the speeds involved can mean that a runaway program can create problems faster than they can be foreseen and prevented. Consider something stupid like accidentally running a reformat action on your computer- by the time you realized what the computer is doing, it's too late, your data is gone, and the computer did not need intelligent thought on its own accord to do it.



Like I said earlier, AGI is not really the issue. It is far more likely that an algorithm like YouTube's pewdiepipeline creates political turmoil, or that a high-frequency trading algorithm goes haywire and collapses the stock market, or that a poorly-implemented power grid managing system locks down our grid and prevents it from being fixed in a timely manner. None of these issues require human-level understanding of the world-- they only require a programmer to be poo poo at coding. If a corporation or government gives a poorly-coded system control of something important, THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT AI PRESENTS. There doesn't even have to be malice involved!