When will there be AI superintelligence?
-
@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.
@davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?
-
@davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?
@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.
-
@davep how are humans intelligent? Magic?
@evan@cosocial.ca @davep@infosec.exchange not magic but thanks to processes we don’t completely understand, let alone replicate
-
@evan@cosocial.ca @davep@infosec.exchange not magic but thanks to processes we don’t completely understand, let alone replicate
-
-
When will there be AI superintelligence?
@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
It's already there. GPT 6 Astra is smarter than any human. -
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 how are humans intelligent? 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.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 -
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.
-
When will there be AI superintelligence?
@evan@cosocial.ca Unknown, but current hardware and software can only barely clear a minimal bar of cognition; forget any kind of intelligence. Conversational LLMs piggy back on human mentalisation cognitions to create the illusion of a mind, but it's even less real than the "people" that used to live in my head when I was a teenager.
We don't even have neuromorphic electronics that can remotely function like a nervous system. We can perform basic cognitions on neuromorphic hardware, but there is no reason to believe that anything like intelligence will magically emerge if you throw enough transistors at the problem.
A further problem is the gordian knot of trying to understand the brain, from its underlying physics to needing to understand the dynamical aspects of its anatomy; currently we're mostly stuck in correlating environmental or internal, conscious stimuli to metabolic activity in particular regions. Lesion studies are more problematic in terms of the accuracy of anatomical knowledge they provide.
Side thought, I think LLMs show one of the biggest weaknesses of attempting to create true AI. As soon as we have a system that can mimic the form of human speech, we are biased to inferring a mind into it through mentalisation cognition. It is going to be an important problem to be able to prove a priori that a system that produces language is doing so as a result of spontaneous self-reflection and motivated by social cognition. -
When will there be AI superintelligence?
@evan no such thing
-
@evan that’s fair. I’m probably just too primed for people playing definitional games about AI. “AI is better than humans at this one specific task, therefore -[rhetorical sleight-of-hand], therefore all the predictions from Bostrom’s book are coming true.” But that’s not on you, that’s on me for not leaving those parts of Reddit sooner.
-
@evan no such thing
@satuelisa there's no such thing as being more intelligent than humans?
-
@evan
1) Which God?
2) False dichotomy.@draken whichever God! I meant, do you think there's something special about organic life that makes it possible for us to have intelligence and impossible for mechanical devices to have it?
-
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 not in our lifetime
@hecate ha! I hope very much that my lifetime extends to the end of this poll.
-
@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.
You're right! I try to get a lot out of the 4 choices Mastodon gives me.
https://evanp.me/pollfaq#never
On the topic of people who say never: nobody has to prove it to me! But I'm interested in why they say it. What part of artificial super intelligence do they think is impossible?
I think for a lot of people, they just assume that what tech billionaires say is by default a crock of shit. It's a good instinct!
-
@evan@cosocial.ca Unknown, but current hardware and software can only barely clear a minimal bar of cognition; forget any kind of intelligence. Conversational LLMs piggy back on human mentalisation cognitions to create the illusion of a mind, but it's even less real than the "people" that used to live in my head when I was a teenager.
We don't even have neuromorphic electronics that can remotely function like a nervous system. We can perform basic cognitions on neuromorphic hardware, but there is no reason to believe that anything like intelligence will magically emerge if you throw enough transistors at the problem.
A further problem is the gordian knot of trying to understand the brain, from its underlying physics to needing to understand the dynamical aspects of its anatomy; currently we're mostly stuck in correlating environmental or internal, conscious stimuli to metabolic activity in particular regions. Lesion studies are more problematic in terms of the accuracy of anatomical knowledge they provide.
Side thought, I think LLMs show one of the biggest weaknesses of attempting to create true AI. As soon as we have a system that can mimic the form of human speech, we are biased to inferring a mind into it through mentalisation cognition. It is going to be an important problem to be able to prove a priori that a system that produces language is doing so as a result of spontaneous self-reflection and motivated by social cognition.@sandriver do you think intelligence can only arise in brain-like systems? Or is that just our easiest path to getting there, since we have an existence proof of it?
️
