AI Acceleration

This can be a general topic.

It feels like AI is saturating the world very fast and faster and faster. I feel like I am falling behind. I am already attached to my AI DJ on Spotify. I would love self-driving cars. In fact, I would probably love AI taking care of most things if it didn't mean dystopia. What do you think?

AI love acceleration is best
but elon has been right all along about AI 2 bad not many listen to him and just do whatever they want.


here is some love ai


, as hiems said i mess up his AI videos

The field needs it's name changed from "A.I" to "brute force statistical machines" so that people can stop making hyperbolic claims about it.

On March 28 2023 17:54 Stroggoz wrote: The field needs it's name changed from "A.I" to "brute force statistical machines" so that people can stop making hyperbolic claims about it.

Experts raising concerns about the dangers of climate change are right, but experts raising concerns about the dangers of A.I. are hyperbolic.

I while Climate change catastrophes are more likely, the A.I. thread is on a extinction level, at the time the digital and physical world are too disconected, our robotics are too rudimentary for an A.I. to wage physical war on mankind but we are quickly transitioning into full digital warfare machines and that so this threat will grow exponentially bigger as we digitalize more and more.

Anyway if A.I. is built with proper safeguards it sounds awesome, can't wait for A.I. vision to be functional, the leap on robotics will be crazy.

Nah i agree the concerns of chatgpt and A.I and such are real. Personally I think it could be harnessed for mass misinformation and social control more than anything else. A.I already does a lot of that through recommender systems, but it's getting to be far worse. There are always unforeseeable threats that A.I poses in the future as well. It will all depend on how it's used and the politics behind it.

I mean the hyperbolic claims about us being 'close' to human-like intelligence. Which very few expert agrees with.

i think its real since they deleted the evidence though,

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/...090c1d74c0cbee25476fba7f109&ei=78

Yo wth happen here, no more ppl discussing?

Not really and especially no with your asinine YouTube videos and bullshit.

On May 09 2023 23:16 RiKD wrote: Not really and especially no with your asinine YouTube videos and bullshit.

not to defend the retarded shaman lion music but you are kinda the king of asinine youtube music videos lol

A.I has a good shot at making better music than people so maybe we won't have to worry about that much longer.

A.I. has no chance of replacing genuine human creativity. Its only real use is in improving corporate profits, surveillance, those kinds of things. It will never be "more intelligent than humans" because it is still determined by computing laws, which is not how human brains work. It's old outdated thinking that still has people believe that the mind is essentially a computer and all that matters is how much bandwidth it has and how many things it can compute at the same time. It's very naive and misinformed.

The kind of thing that Elon talks about is a dystopian fantasy. Only people who are really disconnected from reality can entertain the thought that a computer is more dangerous than nukes and climate change. A computer cannot do shit and be "let free" on the world. It can't rebuild itself, it can't even plug itself into an outlet when it's out of power (or near out of power). It does not have that kind of intelligence, it constantly needs support from human beings for its very limited existence. A robot can be sent to autocharge but it doesn't know that it's going to charge itself, it cannot sense this in its environment unless it is programmed to interact with platforms that can charge it. In this dystopian world there would need to be a lot of nearly indestructible charging platforms everywhere for the robots to recharge while they wage war on us, the mental image of that is absolutely ludicrous.

Part of me wants to give them credit and say "they know that they are full of shit and they're just distracting the populace from how much power they have for as long as they can" but that'd be granting them too much intelligence and self-awareness which they likely don't have.

On May 10 2023 05:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On May 09 2023 23:16 RiKD wrote: Not really and especially no with your asinine YouTube videos and bullshit. not to defend the retarded shaman lion music but you are kinda the king of asinine youtube music videos lol

My music video to blog ratio is nothing spectacular and asinine is a strong word for posting music that I like. If the site were still active it would be interesting to run a poll if people liked, disliked, or were impartial to the music that I posted.

On May 10 2023 18:19 Loco wrote: A.I. has no chance of replacing genuine human creativity. Its only real use is in improving corporate profits, surveillance, those kinds of things. It will never be "more intelligent than humans" because it is still determined by computing laws, which is not how human brains work. It's old outdated thinking that still has people believe that the mind is essentially a computer and all that matters is how much bandwidth it has and how many things it can compute at the same time. It's very naive and misinformed. The kind of thing that Elon talks about is a dystopian fantasy. Only people who are really disconnected from reality can entertain the thought that a computer is more dangerous than nukes and climate change. A computer cannot do shit and be "let free" on the world. It can't rebuild itself, it can't even plug itself into an outlet when it's out of power (or near out of power). It does not have that kind of intelligence, it constantly needs support from human beings for its very limited existence. A robot can be sent to autocharge but it doesn't know that it's going to charge itself, it cannot sense this in its environment unless it is programmed to interact with platforms that can charge it. In this dystopian world there would need to be a lot of nearly indestructible charging platforms everywhere for the robots to recharge while they wage war on us, the mental image of that is absolutely ludicrous. Part of me wants to give them credit and say "they know that they are full of shit and they're just distracting the populace from how much power they have for as long as they can" but that'd be granting them too much intelligence and self-awareness which they likely don't have.

I agree that A.I will never really replace humans or true human creativity. In fact, I think A.I is the exact opposite of what is generally considered to be "intelligence". It solves problems using brute force, rather than using sets of a few principles to efficiently solve a problem. It uses methods that are generally considered to be the stupidest methods by scientists or normal people. I personally do not think AGI will ever be achieved, and things like chatgpt do not bring us any closer because they are using methods that don't draw from any insight into how human psychology works. Like i've said earlier, the field of research could easily be called "Brute Force Inference Algorithms", or something dull like that, and it would make it harder to convince people that "Brute Force Inference Algorithms" are going to be as intelligent as humans in the future. This could be an effective hype killer.

However, I think A.I has more uses than just improving corporate profits and surveillance. Think of email spam classification. That is a basic innovation by A.I that is clearly a huge benefit to human civilization. There are no corporate profits to be made off it, because it's something that can easily be solved in a few lines of code by anyone with a basic understanding of machine learning. Yet it saves people billions of hours of work. It's a fine example of automation. There are lots of great things that A.I can do, and whether they further corporate profits or further us towards fully automated luxury communism is a political choice. There's also a lot of A.I that doesn't involve surveillance. I'm currently making a program that automatically suggests academic citations to people writing in a text editor. I have not needed to use surveillance for it, nor reinforcement learning. I think surveillance is justifiable if people agree to it. In cases where it's just being used to improve a product, many would agree that it's ok and click ok on the agreement thingy, lol. But the things that Facebook does are pure evil. Everyone on this forum has had their political views shaped by A.I to some extent.

Elon's views are not really accepted by the scientific or most of the engineering community when it comes to these bizarre dystopian fantasies. I'm guessing many don't publicly criticize his whacky ideas, because he is a potential source of funding. I think It's generally younger, or uneducated people, that buy into this cult of AGI or cult of Elon. It's kind of strange that people like Ray Kurzweil buy into it, because he clearly knows a lot about A.I, so he should be able to see it for what it is. Though, perhaps it's not so strange when you look at the long history of powerful people thinking they can achieve immortality. I'm guessing most engineers think Elon is a massive douchenozzle: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers...3j0yz/what_do_you_guys_think_of_elon/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers...consider_elon_musk_to_be_an_engineer/

I'm very skeptical that A.I could be used to make self-driving cars (at the level of no steering wheel). Generally, A.I achieve accuracy levels on the 95-99% level doing predictions for most tasks. Humans don't crash when driving cars around 99.999% of the time, which is an enormous difference from 99% when it comes to prediction. A.I therefore, only, has real world applications when the consequences of failure don't matter that much. So I don't really understand why Google and Tesla and other companies are putting so much money into self-driving cars when it could be put elsewhere. Same goes for any other task that has deadly consequences when it fails at prediction. This is common sense really.

I will say this about the threat of things like chatgpt. Currently it is very easy for a software engineer to make their own chatgpt bot. There are lots of guides on youtube. What openA.I has done, it's not actually using anything new. They are using algorithms developed by google around 2016~ (The famous paper is called "attention is all you need", it's on Arxiv). A lone software engineer cannot afford the kind of database and data extraction that openA.I can, so they cannot train their bot to be as good as the one Open A.I uses. I see this not being the case in a decade or two. Individuals will be able to essentially download the whole 2021 database of the internet onto their own cloud or server and it will cost say $100 a month to run. This is probably not a great development for making a reality-based internet where people trust each other. We have websites like kaggle and common-crawl that sell or even freely give away enormous amounts of cleaned data, and google now has their own search engine for datasets.

Also, the people saying A.I will replace people's jobs are wrong. Unemployment rates are literally just a political choice. But even if we agree that capitalism is some law of nature, (it isn't), it's kind of bizarre that over and over again we hear about automation being a threat to employment when the unemployment rate has basically hovered between 0-20% for the last 200 years while the people working in agriculture has gone from 80% of the population down to about 1%.

Digital marketing is going to take a huge dick up the ass. It already is btw, writers, copywriters, and content hubs have been so disrupted by this. I use openai directly and pay for output, and it's ridiculous how fast everything is changing. Art, Music, Video, writing jobs will be greatly affected before the year ends.

%3D

I'm not savvy on the technology behind spam filtering but I'd assume it's necessary to surveil all your emails in order to do a good job, so I'd toss it into the "improves surveillance" pile. But yes, more surveillance is not always bad thing, the problem is when it's top down and we think we are free to accept it and when we really aren't.

We need some good spam filtering on LP so that 99% of lostaccount's posts are nuked. : )

If it's using a basic ML algorithm, (not deep learning), it's a machine reading the text in an email, looking for various grammatical and semantic patterns and words, dodgy hyperlinks, specific words like "Nigerian", and "prince", and "lottery", in order to figure out if it's spam or not. Is that much different from a thermometer reading the temperature of a room? I wouldn't really call it surveillance, at least by Shoshana Zuboff's definition.

The machine would be trained on data from many non spam / spam emails that are labeled separately. That data doesn't have to be extracted from unknowing victims, the software engineer could simply train it on their own email inbox plus their friends, if they have a large enough email inbox. Or they could voluntarily contribute to an existing dataset and share it online for research. How they gathered the data, I'm honestly not sure.

What Facebook or Google does is different, I don't need to explain it because it's easy to see what it's doing from personal experience.

I don't think it would be too difficult to build a lostaccount spam post detecting device that is accurate around 95% of the time. I guess you could programme it to temp ban him when it detects a recent post that was edited and contains no text, or a string of 4+ posts in a row.

Yeah my views are that the big tech companies should be democratized/socialized. They are not legal entities, even. Since when did monopolies become legal, or does society want to just keep pretending that there's no such thing as the law. Aside from that there needs to be highly restrictive laws on what can be surveilled. Would the public vote for that in a democracy? Polls indicate that they would.

People who use this thing love it but at the same time are terrified by it. I'm telling you it's dangerously close to disrupting things to no end. Every day it's something different. The only concern I have with over regulating this thing is that other grey countries are also developing their own so it forces the West to keep it running just to stay ahead. I'm not saying it's going to catastrophic but it sure feels creepy how fast development is going.

On May 12 2023 03:02 whammbot wrote: People who use this thing love it but at the same time are terrified by it. I'm telling you it's dangerously close to disrupting things to no end. Every day it's something different. The only concern I have with over regulating this thing is that other grey countries are also developing their own so it forces the West to keep it running just to stay ahead. I'm not saying it's going to catastrophic but it sure feels creepy how fast development is going.

Forget governments or mega corporations. Individuals will be able to do this in 10-20 years. Individuals can already make chatgpt in python, there are lots of guides on youtube. The more impressive thing that openAI did was extract and clean data from the entire internet. That's way harder than using sophisticated algorithms that have already been developed. But this cleaned data, a lot of it is already publicly available. So yeah, it's gona be harder to regulate than gun control in the near future.

I've heard the chinese chatgpt is alot better at math. I think the only use of chatgpt that i've found is that it's very good at automating a lot of coding taks. You can ask chatgpt to make chatgpt for you, and it gives you the backend part of the code, it seems. This is an example: https://i.imgur.com/ouwe89S.png

On May 10 2023 18:19 Loco wrote: A.I. has no chance of replacing genuine human creativity. Its only real use is in improving corporate profits, surveillance, those kinds of things. It will never be "more intelligent than humans" because it is still determined by computing laws, which is not how human brains work. It's old outdated thinking that still has people believe that the mind is essentially a computer and all that matters is how much bandwidth it has and how many things it can compute at the same time. It's very naive and misinformed. The kind of thing that Elon talks about is a dystopian fantasy. Only people who are really disconnected from reality can entertain the thought that a computer is more dangerous than nukes and climate change. A computer cannot do shit and be "let free" on the world. It can't rebuild itself, it can't even plug itself into an outlet when it's out of power (or near out of power). It does not have that kind of intelligence, it constantly needs support from human beings for its very limited existence. A robot can be sent to autocharge but it doesn't know that it's going to charge itself, it cannot sense this in its environment unless it is programmed to interact with platforms that can charge it. In this dystopian world there would need to be a lot of nearly indestructible charging platforms everywhere for the robots to recharge while they wage war on us, the mental image of that is absolutely ludicrous. Part of me wants to give them credit and say "they know that they are full of shit and they're just distracting the populace from how much power they have for as long as they can" but that'd be granting them too much intelligence and self-awareness which they likely don't have.

You are a cornucopia of single minded bad takes and terrible predictions, I love it.

We like to pretend our creativity regarding art is endless and its process so mysteriouis yet the most popular songs are a few chords regurgitated by music producers that know what people like, easily mimicked by A.I. and thinking that only applies to the masses that a refined taste like yours can only be tickled by the highest quality of artistry well think again, it won't take that long for AI to write a masterful symphony that will delight our snobby ears.

That being said I dont think it will erradicate the arts, we will discriminate in favour to human made art for the same reason I stated above, we think too highly of ourselves.

On May 13 2023 10:00 Baalim wrote: We like to pretend our creativity regarding art is endless and its process so mysteriouis yet the most popular songs are a few chords regurgitated by music producers that know what people like, easily mimicked by A.I. and thinking that only applies to the masses that a refined taste like yours can only be tickled by the highest quality of artistry well think again, it won't take that long for AI to write a masterful symphony that will delight our snobby ears. That being said I dont think it will erradicate the arts, we will discriminate in favour to human made art for the same reason I stated above, we think too highly of ourselves.

It is self-evident that human beings have infinite creativity, though. That's not some sort of anthropocentric worldview. It's just an observation. Take something basic like natural language. Many sentences people use in daily life have never been used before. In terms of art, yes, human beings have constraints on what they can create, just like other animals do. But within those constraints, you still have infinite generative capacity.

It's possible that an unregulated internet will become fake enough that people won't have the privilege to discriminate between human music and robot music. That shouldn't be ruled out.

It's not that an AI can't create a creative product that will match my or other people's preferences perfectly well. I'm sure the more time that passes and the more practice and feedback they get, the better they'll be. It's already plenty good at that, anyway.

But at least to me, appreciating art is actually about appreciating the creative human genius behind it, not just about appreciating the product. I'm not worried about AI 'overtaking the world' or whatever, I'm worried about AI becoming better than humans at all the various fun human activities that are fun to engage in, to the point where attempting to become 'great' at them ends up feeling kinda meaningless because even if you spend three decades mastering something, some jerk can just ask a computer to make something better.

If a computer can do it better then it should, and it's evidence that it was meaningless to begin with. That's what computers do. They don't deal with meaning. They can recreate popular patterns that a lot of people find pleasing in music, sure, but they cannot create thematic art that is actually meaningful. It can't have depth. It can certainly be programmed to use a lot of poetic words, and even superficially seem like it's saying something that matters, but it never will create a piece of art that can really touch and change people. It's not in the code and can never be. With computers and humans we are dealing with differences of kind, not degrees. It doesn't matter how advanced it gets because it's not about the complicatedness of the code. The complicatedness of the code cannot compare in kind with the complexity of hundreds of millions of years of self-organizing, evolving biological life. We can express that complexity through sound because we have an inner need for it, a need that a computer will never be able to understand and therefore won't reproduce. No matter how advanced it gets it would never write anything that matters. But even if it did, like in the case of the infinite monkey theorem (a monkey with a typewriter given enough time will eventually write all of Shakespeare), would it actually have the kind of impact that Shakespeare had? Seems impossible because a work of art is appreciated in part because it is an attempt to communicate with/express something towards somebody. We often love to ask questions to artists, get to know them so we can know the work better, etc. If it came from a computer that experience would be gone.

On May 14 2023 01:26 Loco wrote: The complicatedness of the code cannot compare in kind with the complexity of hundreds of millions of years of self-organizing, evolving biological life.

Yeah, that's basically why I said I don't consider chatGPT to be a step forward for AGI. It made no scientific advancements in understanding how the mind works, even if it's useful for engineering. Chatgpt is not nearly as complicated as a single-cell organism. So that should give an indicator as to how far off we are. The algorithms that A.I researchers use to find meaning in text basically just count how often words co-occur together. That's a simplification, but that's really what it comes down to.

The neurons in biology are beyond complex, they themselves contain millions of computers processing DNA and all that. The ones in Artificial neural networks are simply nodes that take numbers in, apply a function, and spit numbers out. Then adjust those numbers by looking at the mistakes they make, until the numbers are just right. The more recent ones add a few bells and whistles to each neuron, but are still doing basic math calculations. That should tell you the difference in complexity compared to biology and A.I.

Also to Drone, yes, A.I. did make poker boring.

On May 14 2023 01:26 Loco wrote: but it never will create a piece of art that can really touch and change people.

That seems empirically testable. We could do a blindfold test for human music and A.I. music and check the results.

On May 14 2023 02:51 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 14 2023 01:26 Loco wrote: The complicatedness of the code cannot compare in kind with the complexity of hundreds of millions of years of self-organizing, evolving biological life. Yeah, that's basically why I said I don't consider chatGPT to be a step forward for AGI. It made no scientific advancements in understanding how the mind works, even if it's useful for engineering. Chatgpt is not nearly as complicated as a single-cell organism. So that should give an indicator as to how far off we are. The algorithms that A.I researchers use to find meaning in text basically just count how often words co-occur together. That's a simplification, but that's really what it comes down to.

I told my coworker about ChatGPT and that it can make certain school documents that she needs for work, like an IEP for a student. She said it did good, but she had to modify a few things.

This is was really coming even before chatgpt but all chatbots will definitely become 100x smarter. These types of jobs will be the first ones to go. BPOs and offshore customer support types will probably stick around for another year or so but who knows

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wendys-g...on-order-taker-an-ai-chatbot-968ff865

On May 13 2023 22:56 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's not that an AI can't create a creative product that will match my or other people's preferences perfectly well. I'm sure the more time that passes and the more practice and feedback they get, the better they'll be. It's already plenty good at that, anyway. But at least to me, appreciating art is actually about appreciating the creative human genius behind it, not just about appreciating the product. I'm not worried about AI 'overtaking the world' or whatever, I'm worried about AI becoming better than humans at all the various fun human activities that are fun to engage in, to the point where attempting to become 'great' at them ends up feeling kinda meaningless because even if you spend three decades mastering something, some jerk can just ask a computer to make something better.

It's almost certain that will be the case, but I think we will make strong differentiation between AI/human created and place differnet value on it.

I mean, Magnus Carlsen's play isn't any less impressive only because an app in a phone can play much better and we still watch weight lifting in the olympics even if a forklift can lift 3 tons.

On May 14 2023 01:26 Loco wrote: If a computer can do it better then it should, and it's evidence that it was meaningless to begin with. That's what computers do. They don't deal with meaning. They can recreate popular patterns that a lot of people find pleasing in music, sure, but they cannot create thematic art that is actually meaningful. It can't have depth. It can certainly be programmed to use a lot of poetic words, and even superficially seem like it's saying something that matters, but it never will create a piece of art that can really touch and change people. It's not in the code and can never be. With computers and humans we are dealing with differences of kind, not degrees. It doesn't matter how advanced it gets because it's not about the complicatedness of the code. The complicatedness of the code cannot compare in kind with the complexity of hundreds of millions of years of self-organizing, evolving biological life. We can express that complexity through sound because we have an inner need for it, a need that a computer will never be able to understand and therefore won't reproduce. No matter how advanced it gets it would never write anything that matters. But even if it did, like in the case of the infinite monkey theorem (a monkey with a typewriter given enough time will eventually write all of Shakespeare), would it actually have the kind of impact that Shakespeare had? Seems impossible because a work of art is appreciated in part because it is an attempt to communicate with/express something towards somebody. We often love to ask questions to artists, get to know them so we can know the work better, etc. If it came from a computer that experience would be gone.

You are talking two completely different things, first you say machines will never surpass humans in lets say music, and cannot create a song that touches and changes people I think this is completely wrong, they will be able to even mimic artits that you wouldn't be able to tell if the artist created it or it was AI.

And it is not that I understimate the depth of human art at all, the complexity of the interaction of the art and the feelings and thoughts evoked is massive, however AI due to its processing capabilities is very good at knowing what we like and what we don't and copy it, and as much as we'd like to believe we can tell a genuine from a "copy" we can't.

I do agree that the experience hence the capacity of art to move and change people is mostly gone when you know it didn't come from a human, but that is only the case when you wan't that experience most of art is low-level and mass consumed, nobody will care about AI generated electronic music for example, or AI generated posters/ADs.

The scary thing about all this is this particular leap is available to everyone now. Coding alone vastly reduces the need for huge teams and for the malicious guys in the space this is a godsend. Imagine this thing being available is barely even in it's 6th month and each day there's some crazy disruption or illegal activity going on. It's impact is actually harder to contain than the internet or cryptocurrency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/01/te...le-chatbot-engineer-quits-hinton.html

guy who helped create this thing even resigned. Elon Musk who helped fund it is even upset that it's turned into a for-profit model when in fact it was designed to not be one.

You could probably implement a type of barcode into every A.I.- generated character and image by generating a sequence of slightly different rbg values into several pixels that are not human-detectable and are a distinct pattern. Then governments could regulate the use of algorithms to enforce these barcodes, at least for A.I. generated images and text. This would allow machines to easily detect whether something else is made by a machine. If people copy pasted text from chatgpt they would be copy pasting the barcodes. It would need strong legal enforcement since you could also make machines that would erase the barcode. That's my idea.

People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be.

Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species.

On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species.

The implication behind thinking we can achieve AGI anytime soon is thinking that we humans are so unbelievably intelligent that we are going to figure out things like free will, consciousness, and other things we have made virtually no progress on for the last thousands of years. Either that or the view that humans can be explained with gradient descent, cross-entropy loss, and backpropagation, which is pretty stupid. You cannot explain much less complex animals with deep learning algorithms. So yes, thinking we are close to AGI is pretty arrogant, on top of being an irrational view, and there being a highly inaccurate record of prediction in this research area.

On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species.

Facts

On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species.

If we're not as smart as we think we are, why do you trust your own judgment of what is the biggest threat to our existence? That's one hell of a leap to make. How would you even weigh the possible damage of intentional harm from bioengineering vs what could come unintentionally in our unnatural world?

There is only one group of people who thinks AI is the biggest threat to our existence, and it's people working in tech. Those people are not the "smartest" people in the world. They have a specific kind of intelligence and view the world from a limited perspective. Usually these people are pretty well off financially, which tells you something.

It amazes me that people can believe in this ideology when it has no obvious way to be an issue without us interfering to include it in our lives. AI can't be the biggest threat to our world simply because it is going to be in our hands at all times, unless it can become embodied, which, by the time it could, this planet will already be one big fireball. AI is dependent on architecture that receives inputs from us. It can always be turned off. It is a threat for other reasons than existential ones.

What is even a good example of creativity from an AI? Has an AI ever produced something completely new and original? Has it been an overt influence on people's thinking? Does AI have ideas that philosophers work with in philosophy departments?

will the self driving tesla taxis be out before ai is gonna kill us all? maybe it's right after we colonize mars...

On May 30 2023 16:38 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species. The implication behind thinking we can achieve AGI anytime soon is thinking that we humans are so unbelievably intelligent that we are going to figure out things like free will, consciousness, and other things we have made virtually no progress on for the last thousands of years. Either that or the view that humans can be explained with gradient descent, cross-entropy loss, and backpropagation, which is pretty stupid. You cannot explain much less complex animals with deep learning algorithms. So yes, thinking we are close to AGI is pretty arrogant, on top of being an irrational view, and there being a highly inaccurate record of prediction in this research area.

Just like pretty much every invention since the dawn of time we will stumble upon it while studing it, we dont need to "understand free will and consciousness" to create it, nobody in the field has even mentioned something like that, if it happens it will be from a self-improving mechanist just like we improved our own consciousness as species through time.

On June 09 2023 03:25 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species. If we're not as smart as we think we are, why do you trust your own judgment of what is the biggest threat to our existence? That's one hell of a leap to make. How would you even weigh the possible damage of intentional harm from bioengineering vs what could come unintentionally in our unnatural world?

Daut: We overestimate our intelligence
Loco: If we are so dumb, how come you can think

lol

There is only one group of people who thinks AI is the biggest threat to our existence, and it's people working in tech.

If virologists working bioengineering viruses told me that these viruses are the biggest existencia threat to mankind I'd fucking listen.

Usually these people are pretty well off financially, which tells you something.

They are also probably mostly CIS straight white men, shees... don't listen to them.

It amazes me that people can believe in this ideology when it has no obvious way to be an issue without us interfering to include it in our lives. AI can't be the biggest threat to our world simply because it is going to be in our hands at all times, unless it can become embodied, which, by the time it could, this planet will already be one big fireball. AI is dependent on architecture that receives inputs from us. It can always be turned off. It is a threat for other reasons than existential ones.

Yeah it will take 5 billion years to get embodied AI, It's not like there are already experimental military drones running on AI or millions of electric vehicles running on crude AI and will have billions of them in the upcoming decades.

Yeah I guess if it goes out of control we can turn the internet off, destroy all our satellites cut off the intercontinental cables, if that doesnt work we can pull the electricity lerver off, and if they somehow harvest their own energy then we can go full animatrix and block the earth from the sun, theres always an off button lol.

The whole argument is that when we realize is too dangerous it will be too late, it will be too smart and far too integrated with us, how can you miss the main point of the danger, wich is that when it "switches on" there is no turning back, we rolled the dice.

What is even a good example of creativity from an AI? Has an AI ever produced something completely new and original? Has it been an overt influence on people's thinking? Does AI have ideas that philosophers work with in philosophy departments?

"But does it create" hahaha the same quality of argument of "But does it have a soul".

Cant wait for AI to keep absolutely demolishing the creative areas before it even can open a soda bottle while leftoids are debating wether if the AI's masterwork is original or a collage of images, because only men can conjure from the ether

Descartes's definition of a soul is actually fairly scientific at the time. He basically says it's this thing that gives humans the ability to reason, whatever that thing is. So to say we have a soul could be interpreted as saying "Do we have a thing that allows us to reason", and so you could very reasonably argue that human beings have souls, since they can reason. The issue is that it's a very vague definition. This however might be acceptable for the time period.
Descartes was a genius but he was a self-conscious bootlicker and had megalomania, and was also a sadist who enjoyed torturing animals. He may also be partly responsible for the climate crisis due in part to entrenching Western philosophy with materialist views. Francis Bacon is another culprit.

I'm not sure if there is an off-button. Cloud Storage uses something called sharding which replicates and distributes your data to servers on 3-4 continents, to dramatically reduce the chance of it ever being erased from a war or a massive flood, ect. The only off button would be to simultaneously destroy all data centres in the world. I don't believe this Terminator thing is anything more than science fiction at this point though heh.

Also, people need to stop associating working in "tech" with being a silicon valley billionaire douchebag.

A.I. is glorious technology imo, and of great benefit to everyone. I refuse to shift blame for social credit score calculations from the CCP onto something like "A.I."

On June 09 2023 03:25 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On May 30 2023 16:16 Daut wrote: People who think AI will never be as smart or creative or well rounded as humans: you're not as smart as you think you are, and you're orders of magnitude less smart than true AI will be. Other than someone bioengineering unstoppable deadly viruses, this is the biggest threat to our existence as a species. If we're not as smart as we think we are, why do you trust your own judgment of what is the biggest threat to our existence? That's one hell of a leap to make. How would you even weigh the possible damage of intentional harm from bioengineering vs what could come unintentionally in our unnatural world? There is only one group of people who thinks AI is the biggest threat to our existence, and it's people working in tech. Those people are not the "smartest" people in the world. They have a specific kind of intelligence and view the world from a limited perspective. Usually these people are pretty well off financially, which tells you something. It amazes me that people can believe in this ideology when it has no obvious way to be an issue without us interfering to include it in our lives. AI can't be the biggest threat to our world simply because it is going to be in our hands at all times, unless it can become embodied, which, by the time it could, this planet will already be one big fireball. AI is dependent on architecture that receives inputs from us. It can always be turned off. It is a threat for other reasons than existential ones. What is even a good example of creativity from an AI? Has an AI ever produced something completely new and original? Has it been an overt influence on people's thinking? Does AI have ideas that philosophers work with in philosophy departments?

1 You haven't defined creativity so it's impossible to answer. You could write a program to randomly generate 0's and 1's 1000 times to get a sequence of 1's and 0's that no one's used before... but if that's creativity, it's a very limited, and restrictive form of it. Creativity needs to be more clearly defined to answer this. This is all that chatgpt can do. Actually, here are the technical details. When you ask it a question it turns your question into a high-dimensional vector or two and then looks up the closest vector in a database, and turns that vector into text. That's basically all it does. The location of each vector encodes "meaning". That meaning is found by counting how many times different words occur near each other. It is not really creating anything, it's retrieving some vectors that it calculated just over a year ago, and stringing them together, returning them, then turning them into text. Those vectors are stored on something like excel spreadsheet (lol).

2 I don't think you can call it completely new and original since it's all trained off human/bot made data.

3 Google search algorithm has been mostly powered by A.I. since 2020, using an al-gore-rythm called BERT. I'm not sure that I'd call it overt, but it's not a secret that A.I. is used intentionally to control people's thoughts with suppression of views that the tech industry doesn't like. Google's CEO bragged to Trump about suppressing left-wing websites in order to convince him that he didn't have a left-wing bias. Google also stopped recommending children's videos to pedos on youtube. That's controlling someones thoughts and habits in an overt way imo.

4 What's an idea? This can't be talked about rationally until you or someone defines what having an idea is. I'm giving the same answer that Turing gave to "can machines think?" If we want to do good science, then we will be practicing extreme levels of pedantry. Coming up with definitions is the highest form of genius when it comes to these debates. It is not possible to say something more intelligent than asking someone to define something here.

1. Look up literally any definition of creativity in a dictionary. It doesn't really suit what an AI does, or will ever do.

2. Yes. You can say it's new in terms of what other AI used to do, but the blurring of boundaries between human and bot and thinking the bot can transcend the human's meaningful creativity is completely different and quite silly. The idea that human beings are just another kind of limited machine and that our minds are like computers is part of a set of old technological beliefs that refuse to die in the popular imagination, but is not at all taken seriously in the cognitive sciences anymore.

3. It's not really overt since it's happening in the background. Most pedos have no idea about what is being restricted to them, and they are not forced to use Google for pedo videos, so it's not controlling their thoughts in any way. In that space they are simply imposed some limitations, like not finding a treasure trove of perfect videos for them very easily, but they can still find things. And it's not the AI, it's Google who made the decision after receiving push back from people. It's not another AI that solved the issue. This same AI initially recommended the videos and created the rabbit hole.

4. Thinking involves agency; it's the conscious weighing of possible decisions and their consequences. An AI does not think because an AI does not feel, and thinking is a tool to navigate the world for a feeling creature. Rationality itself cannot be disconnected from feelings. You can look up Antonio Damasio's experiments on gambling and his notion of the "somatic marker" for examples. In one of them it's easy to get a gambler who has frontal lobe damage to consistently go broke in a way that a normal person never would because they cannot rely on loss-aversion to steer them in the right direction, since they don't have fear as a motivation to become loss-averse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis

I'd basically agree with all of those 4 points, given those definitions.

For point 3 I didn't actually mean that the A.I. was making people think all by itself. All of these algorithms require outsiders to set parameters.

AI will probably take over the world at some point, or at least be a major part of it, so much so that humans won't be able to live without it. Hopefully that happens after my lifetime.

Nvidia stock went up $250 billion this year from the A.I. hype train, near $200 billion in one day (18 May) alone. JFC.

The new trolley problem just dropped boys...

How many people are we talking about here?

Are they Nazis?

-_-

Lol time magazine is f naming taylor swift over Sam

I just saw it today