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.
  • 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
                              • evan@cosocial.caE evan@cosocial.ca

                                When will there be AI superintelligence?

                                #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

                                sandriver@zoner.workS This user is from outside of this forum
                                sandriver@zoner.workS This user is from outside of this forum
                                sandriver@zoner.work
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #53

                                @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.

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

                                  When will there be AI superintelligence?

                                  #EvanPoll #poll #ai #superintelligence

                                  satuelisa@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                  satuelisa@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                  satuelisa@mastodon.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #54

                                  @evan no such thing

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

                                    @rxp

                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence?wprov=sfla1

                                    rxp@mastodon.onlineR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rxp@mastodon.onlineR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rxp@mastodon.online
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #55

                                    @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@cosocial.caE 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • satuelisa@mastodon.socialS satuelisa@mastodon.social

                                      @evan no such thing

                                      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
                                      #56

                                      @satuelisa there's no such thing as being more intelligent than humans?

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • draken@masto.nycD draken@masto.nyc

                                        @evan
                                        1) Which God?
                                        2) False dichotomy.

                                        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
                                        #57

                                        @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?

                                        draken@masto.nycD 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • trisweb@m.trisweb.comT trisweb@m.trisweb.com

                                          @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 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
                                          #58

                                          @trisweb @davep there's a really good book on that, actually! "The emperor's new mind". I'm not sure I agree with Penrose but it's a really great read.

                                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

                                          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