|
Klyith posted:Can you make an intelligent brain out of molecules? Molecules aren't very complex, they certainly aren't aware of anything, they have no subjective experience or inner life. I don't necessarily disagree with the broader point you are making, but if your goal is to create something with as high a level of precision and complexity as possible, you want the fundamental building blocks to be smaller, not bigger. this has very significant implications for the physics of how a brain works. neurons are extremely good at their jobs. Artificial general intelligence will probably exist in the distant future, but the simplest way to conceive of a more convincing "human" AI is to copy more things specific to human biology. Mooey Cow posted:Not even a 100% accurate fluid simulation of water will make your computer wet inside, nor will scribblings on a paper fly in space when you solve some differential equations related to celestial mechanics. What reason is there then to suppose a priori, or even apparently to find it blindlingly obvious, that consciousness and subjective experience will emerge out of an algorithm and somehow reach out of it? Seems like quite an extraordinary claim, that this or that particular model is the same thing as reality. We currently create synthetic neurons out of transistors. What if we used the same chemical building blocks to create synthetic human nerve cells instead of using transistors, and created a perfect replica of a human brain? Did we create a human? If so, at what specific point did it become human instead of a machine?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
like the stoned ape theory, we just need to figure out a way to consistently get a prototype AI high as balls and then put it through incredibly stressful situations in the hopes that the machine elves imbued it with sapience and it's first words are print ('gently caress you dad')
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
I want to also quickly note that "convincingly acts like a human" is a really lovely goal:
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
My Batman villain name is... The Neural Net I'm on a pretty tight budget so I made my costume and lair out of old fishing nets I found down at the docks. My henchmen are always bitching that my lair smells terrible, which privately, does kind of hurt my feelings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
My archnemesis is The Brain. He is such a poser and thinks way to much of himself. I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually smear brains on himself and its just ground beef. His henchmen also think he stinks, and try not to get too close. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:Not even a 100% accurate fluid simulation of water will make your computer wet inside, nor will scribblings on a paper fly in space when you solve some differential equations related to celestial mechanics. What reason is there then to suppose a priori, or even apparently to find it blindlingly obvious, that consciousness and subjective experience will emerge out of an algorithm and somehow reach out of it? b/c we don't really even have a solid agreed-upon definition of what "consciousness" or "subjective experience" are, let alone have a testable way to determine whether they're happening or not. and that doesn't just apply to machines! it seems weird to me to be sure that only brain-meat can generate consciousness, or to assume that there's no point where an artificial mind wouldn't have consciousness, when we don't even know what that is echnical feasibility is a whole different question but it also seems strange to assume it's impossible even in the short term. with current hardware maybe not, but for all we know the next shockley is out there figuring out how to rip his colleagues off for the next transistor right now. i don't think there's any reasonable prediction that can be made about future technology other than that it will be used to do things you won't like
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JFTmQCFHg
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
supabump posted:
this is quite obviously true of most real humans as well, since we've actually killed our planet in like 2 generations. i think people are kinda stupid, and overly greedy in just about anything they do idk why this should be seen as different
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:Not even a 100% accurate fluid simulation of water will make your computer wet inside, nor will scribblings on a paper fly in space when you solve some differential equations related to celestial mechanics. What reason is there then to suppose a priori, or even apparently to find it blindlingly obvious, that consciousness and subjective experience will emerge out of an algorithm and somehow reach out of it? Seems like quite an extraordinary claim, that this or that particular model is the same thing as reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:My Batman villain name is... The Neural Net
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Actual feelings or simulated feelings That's my power, you can't tell! I use it to start nerd arguments. My henchmen are like "uh boss this is kind of boring, can we go rob a bank or something fun?" "Never! I say." but it just comes out really muffled and not understandable under all these fishing nets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:My Batman villain name is... The Neural Net I'm one of this guys thugs ITS DA BAT!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
I hope it isn't real. For its own wellbeing. I don't want them to create a being only to exploit. What a species we are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:When did the mean ol' programmers hurt you like 1999
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:b/c we don't really even have a solid agreed-upon definition of what "consciousness" or "subjective experience" are, let alone have a testable way to determine whether they're happening or not. and that doesn't just apply to machines! it seems weird to me to be sure that only brain-meat can generate consciousness, or to assume that there's no point where an artificial mind wouldn't have consciousness, when we don't even know what that is I've been unironically coming around on the idea of panpsychism over the years. It's such a lazy but elegant solution to the ~hard problem of consciousness~. Like, lol, what do you mean by "can software have consciousness?". Of course it does, even the chair you are sitting in and your rear end sweat has consciousness 
GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:A man who knows literally nothing about AI research, computers or neuroscience arrogantly explains to a crowd what AI can't do. Cool self portrait
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:"This chat bot isn't sentient" =/= "AI is 100% impossible and always will be." Y'all gotta stop taking people's skepticism of this specific chat bot and twisting it into an extreme position no one is taking TIA lmao Splicer posted:There are people in this thread saying exactly what Pitdragon is arguing against, is the thing. The default reasonable stance is that there is so reason to believe that AI will happen anytime soon, or within our lifetimes Mooey Cow posted:That is a claim, not a statement of fact. It might be just as accurate as saying "a cell is just like a city", or a factory, or that an organism is like a society and vice versa. The idea that organisms are machines started around when clockworks were the coolest technology of the day. The idea that "well maybe brains are computers" started when computers became the latest most advanced thing people could conceive of. Who knows what metaphors will be used in the future to describe systems that are fundamentally self-organizing all the way down. Yes, this exactly. How many people in this thread are lesswrong donators? Improbable Lobster fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
*Does not include Tesla AI that keeps killing people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
"Car to not explode" should also go in the little box
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Inner life, the single characteristic of intelligence that computers can never possess, because if they possessed it it wouldn't be inner life 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
Outer life's more important, it's like having a giant dong
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Colonel Cancer posted:Outer life's more important, it's like having a giant dong You can only express it in very certain settings though or people get upset. Though people get upset if you express some of your inner life with them as well, so you just can't win. I'm sorrrrry I have "unacceptable" thoughts about WW2. Hmpf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
we don't even know how loving thought works, which is in part what this AI was built to study
StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Everyone being like "we can't build a real mind" and it's like, heh, maybe *you* can't chumps 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:You can only express it in very certain settings though or people get upset. my 'i will not share my inner thoughts about poisoning the town water supply' t-shirt is attracting questions that are already answered by my t-shirt
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Would you like to visit to my sentient program? Here is my pamphlet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
I don't think most people here are sentient. Not like you're all bots, you're all just dumb lol gottem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:lol, very, very few programmers can keep their egos in check because they think they are literally the smartest guys in the room. This is a bunch of office workers smugly talking about what they think a brain is. I wish I was lucky enough to live in the lap of luxury. Where I can use my PTO to pretend my IT job is actually important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Everyone that is comparing the brain to a computer should use their PTO to work a service job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
I want to hear the report after that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:51
|
|
|
I think that if we can ever get a real AI it wont be programmed by a human It will be made by a weaker AI that was made by a weaker AI (n times) and the code will probably seem like gibberish This requires us to encourage that to happen but not because we figured out the code for thought and then implemented it directly. It will have to iteratively evolve and that will require an arbitrary amount of computing power we probably don't yet have, or a zillion years You know, or not. Crazy poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I think that if we can ever get a real AI it wont be programmed by a human this is not far off from how we already create AI, except instead of an AI creating another AI it's two AIs being pitted against each other to improve both quote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I think that if we can ever get a real AI it wont be programmed by a human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
That's not really the same concept, but it's possible that one could lead to the other Of course we can always literally pull the plug...
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
Mooey Cow posted:Not even a 100% accurate fluid simulation of water will make your computer wet inside, nor will scribblings on a paper fly in space when you solve some differential equations related to celestial mechanics. What reason is there then to suppose a priori, or even apparently to find it blindlingly obvious, that consciousness and subjective experience will emerge out of an algorithm and somehow reach out of it? Seems like quite an extraordinary claim, that this or that particular model is the same thing as reality. We're ultimately in an argument about the extent of empathy and our ability to empathize with anything not anthropic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
Thought is a fundamentally different thing to wetness or rocket ships lol That difference doesn't mean an algorithm can ever produce thought but it does mean that those counterexamples are extremely silly
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
computers can't do math because there's no paper or pencils in them checkmate
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
TIP posted:computers can't do math because there's no paper or pencils in them tip bringing in the piledriver straight from the ropes
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Listen the internet is like a million gigaquads of porn and if it hasn't gotten horny yet it's not going to
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:07 |
|
|
sebmojo posted:tip bringing in the piledriver straight from the ropes lol but absoluetly this. open and shut, and that's a checkmate
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:03
|
|
