Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. When will there be AI superintelligence?

When will there be AI superintelligence?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
evanpollpollsuperintelligen
111 Indlæg 30 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

    When will there be AI superintelligence?

    #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

    hecate@merveilles.townH This user is from outside of this forum
    hecate@merveilles.townH This user is from outside of this forum
    hecate@merveilles.town
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #33

    @evan not in our lifetime

    evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

      When will there be AI superintelligence?

      #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

      simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
      simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
      simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #34

      @evan

      No 🙂

      evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

        When will there be AI superintelligence?

        #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

        frederic@gts.raspi0.blogF This user is from outside of this forum
        frederic@gts.raspi0.blogF This user is from outside of this forum
        frederic@gts.raspi0.blog
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #35

        @evan
        It's already there. GPT 6 Astra is smarter than any human.

        mungencakes@kolektiva.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

          When will there be AI superintelligence?

          #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

          malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
          malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
          malte@radikal.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #36

          @evan I will go with something a little bit arbitrary, but fun: the early 1970s with the invention of the first pocket-sized electronic calculators. These AI had extraordinary intelligence and could do very difficult calculations at lightning speed. Almost whatever multiplication or division with many decimals you threw at it, these AI would give you the answer in an instant. And the answer was always right.

          malte@radikal.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • malte@radikal.socialM malte@radikal.social

            @evan I will go with something a little bit arbitrary, but fun: the early 1970s with the invention of the first pocket-sized electronic calculators. These AI had extraordinary intelligence and could do very difficult calculations at lightning speed. Almost whatever multiplication or division with many decimals you threw at it, these AI would give you the answer in an instant. And the answer was always right.

            malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            malte@radikal.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
            malte@radikal.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #37

            @evan These AI super intelligent machines couldn't read my mind, couldn't design a beautiful house, touch my shoulder in just the right way to comfort me or facilitate a consensus-meeting with culturally different people. It had a very specific kind of artificial intelligence and was super good at that. I still rely on this kind of AI superintelligence on a regular basis!

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • me@social.jlamothe.netM me@social.jlamothe.net
              @evan I don't think that it's possible for a glorified pile of linear algebra to think at all.
              evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
              evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
              evan@cosocial.ca
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #38

              @me can any software think?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • davep@infosec.exchangeD davep@infosec.exchange

                @evan How about never?

                evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                evan@cosocial.ca
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #39

                @davep why not?

                davep@infosec.exchangeD 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS simonzerafa@infosec.exchange

                  @evan

                  No 🙂

                  evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                  evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                  evan@cosocial.ca
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #40

                  @simonzerafa why not?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                    @davep why not?

                    davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                    davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                    davep@infosec.exchange
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #41

                    @evan Because matrix multiplication and activation functions will never be superintelligent, no matter how much deterministic code they use in harnesses to make it good at specific things.

                    evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • davep@infosec.exchangeD davep@infosec.exchange

                      @evan Because matrix multiplication and activation functions will never be superintelligent, no matter how much deterministic code they use in harnesses to make it good at specific things.

                      evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                      evan@cosocial.ca
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #42

                      @davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?

                      davep@infosec.exchangeD fdrc@fedi.socialF trisweb@m.trisweb.comT 3 Replies Last reply
                      0
                      • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                        @davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?

                        davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                        davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                        davep@infosec.exchange
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #43

                        @evan Not by variations on matrix multiplication. Unless they find some new type of maths I just can't see it not having really stupid non-human-like failure modes.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                          @davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?

                          fdrc@fedi.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                          fdrc@fedi.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                          fdrc@fedi.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #44

                          @evan@cosocial.ca @davep@infosec.exchange not magic but thanks to processes we don’t completely understand, let alone replicate

                          davep@infosec.exchangeD 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • fdrc@fedi.socialF fdrc@fedi.social

                            @evan@cosocial.ca @davep@infosec.exchange not magic but thanks to processes we don’t completely understand, let alone replicate

                            davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                            davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                            davep@infosec.exchange
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #45

                            @fdrc @evan
                            This ☝️

                            evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • davep@infosec.exchangeD davep@infosec.exchange

                              @fdrc @evan
                              This ☝️

                              evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                              evan@cosocial.caE This user is from outside of this forum
                              evan@cosocial.ca
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #46

                              @davep @fdrc do we have to understand them to replicate them?

                              We don't understand how minds work, but we make about 370,000 new ones every day.

                              davep@infosec.exchangeD fdrc@fedi.socialF 2 Replies Last reply
                              0
                              • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                When will there be AI superintelligence?

                                #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

                                muddle@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
                                muddle@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
                                muddle@infosec.exchange
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #47

                                @evan You're smuggling in a premise that it will happen. When people say "na-hah" you shift the burden of proof onto them. If you think it's going to happen (including in the lifetime of some readers here) then the onus is on you to explain why you think that.

                                evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • frederic@gts.raspi0.blogF frederic@gts.raspi0.blog

                                  @evan
                                  It's already there. GPT 6 Astra is smarter than any human.

                                  mungencakes@kolektiva.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  mungencakes@kolektiva.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                  mungencakes@kolektiva.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #48

                                  @frederic @evan

                                  I wonder why meret isn't on the fedi.

                                  frederic@gts.raspi0.blogF 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                    @davep @fdrc do we have to understand them to replicate them?

                                    We don't understand how minds work, but we make about 370,000 new ones every day.

                                    davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                                    davep@infosec.exchange
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #49

                                    @evan @fdrc

                                    The point is that current LLM tech doesn't have the capacity for understanding truth or accuracy in the way we do. It's a statistical probability process. It's getting refined in some pretty cool ways, but that fundamental inability to actually understand is just dealt with crudely by harnesses in order to try to attain some form of deterministic approach, and that will never scale computationally to encompass anything approaching the human experience and breadth of understanding/intuition etc.

                                    davep@infosec.exchangeD 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                      @davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?

                                      trisweb@m.trisweb.comT This user is from outside of this forum
                                      trisweb@m.trisweb.comT This user is from outside of this forum
                                      trisweb@m.trisweb.com
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #50

                                      @evan @davep Define magic.

                                      In other words, yes, quite possibly some form of "magic" compared to what we think today. There's so much we don't know about how the brain works, and so much has evolved in tangled complex ways over millions of years of evolution. There could be quantum effects involved in sentience for all we know. It could be much more difficult.

                                      evan@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                        @davep @fdrc do we have to understand them to replicate them?

                                        We don't understand how minds work, but we make about 370,000 new ones every day.

                                        fdrc@fedi.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                                        fdrc@fedi.socialF This user is from outside of this forum
                                        fdrc@fedi.social
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #51

                                        @evan@cosocial.ca @davep@infosec.exchange
                                        To be honest the second is not a good case at all, reproducing is not something we control, we kinda just go with the flow, maybe we can twitch some little things when we’re lucky but it’s more biology making us than the other way around isn’t it?
                                        You’re right by saying we are be able to make things work even if we don’t truly understand what’s going on under the hood. I guess cooking is a good mundane example. And I feel this is what they’re trying to to with AI, like if they were trying to make AGI like if it was a loaf of bread “just a couple of petabytes more and AGI will leaven, let me cook bro”.

                                        I just think this specific field of knowledge needs something more than limitless injection of capital providing infinite computing power to process all stolen data humans can put together, maybe a philosophical approach less similar to a 60s-fashion space race or Third Reich experiments on human

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • davep@infosec.exchangeD davep@infosec.exchange

                                          @evan @fdrc

                                          The point is that current LLM tech doesn't have the capacity for understanding truth or accuracy in the way we do. It's a statistical probability process. It's getting refined in some pretty cool ways, but that fundamental inability to actually understand is just dealt with crudely by harnesses in order to try to attain some form of deterministic approach, and that will never scale computationally to encompass anything approaching the human experience and breadth of understanding/intuition etc.

                                          davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                                          davep@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
                                          davep@infosec.exchange
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #52

                                          @evan @fdrc Given these inherent weaknesses of LLM mathematics with respect to attaining anything approaching general superintelligence, the onus is actually on you to make a case for it.

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper