Look up Piet Mondrian. Generally considered an artist. Got copied by computers back in the 1960's. Got copied well enough to fool experts.

So, if there is a Turing test for art, it got passed nearly 60 years ago.

The term Artificial Intelligence, we understand artificial it just means man-made. When it comes to intelligence we are out of luck. We can't sit down and give a cogent explanation of what it is. That's is pretty damn weird! Think about it for a minute. We recognize intelligence easily enough, we all have friends who need to work harder than we do to 'get' stuff and we all know some folks who make us look slow on the up-take.

One argument I make is that if we don't know what Natural Intelligence actually is, then everything we say about AI is more than likely BS! How likely is it that random crap is correct?

I can't define intelligence better than anyone else but since I can, like all of us, identify it then I pick mathematics as a stand-in for intelligence. Why math? Because it is the only unbroken line of development of intellectual history available as far as I know. Our first written math comes Mesopotamia and Egypt from 2,000 BC. 4,000 years of hard fought progress. Earlier stuff is lost to us but we know that math and art started roughly at the same time: Rock paintings of hunting scenes and bones with notches that may be counting sticks, or not. What is assumed to be a five count, four uprights and a diagonal, could just as easily be a pictograph of a hand holding a spear.

We spend 12 years in school to learn 4,000+ years of research. Just the very basics, nothing later than 1800 or so. Essentially just one long survey course. Higher education beckons and we learn some things in depth. Some even add another brick to the pile.

The takeaway is than 1980's AI pet Expert Systems were essentially a Rube Goldberg version of 20+ questions. Today's version is sophisticated pattern matching. Both are likely threads in what make up the tapestry of intelligence. That is just raw materials. Then we have to consider the machinery. And finally the 'ghost in the machine', the weaver.

AI turns 75 in two years. It will get a hell of a lot older before it gets 'intelligent'.

I think this depends on your definition of 'original research'. Some AI systems already do research, and are used to set the equipment for the next run based on the numerical results of all the previous runs. This is used in semiconductor process optimization and fusion energy research. You could argue that this isn't 'original' or 'research' but you could devise a lot of experiments that are "just" have the robots do an experiment similar to before, but vary certain parameters in a way the AI 'believes' (based on past data) may give new information.

The key part in that description is having robots sophisticated enough to set up experiments, something we don't currently have.

Is there a resource where I could delve deeper into why this is the case?

I agree with you ! But we gotta keep in mind that most people are just completely unaware of what computers do.

There was this study a few decades ago, I believe, where they sent a guy disguised in robot to talk with random people. And most people weren't freaking out at all, they were like "yeah, it's a robot, nothing special, this is what robots do right ?" even though it was clearly passing Turing test easily.

Unfortunately, the idea that computers are cold machines that are not as good as humans, and the idea that they are magic boxes that do anything we like, will probably keep coexisting (and sometimes at the same time in just one uninformed mind) until we get true AGI.

Gay Hitler. I agree that there is a slim chance it could be in the next two years with unlikely. Keep being a homo.

People will look back and say "of course a computer can do that".

I remember seeing deepminds AI play breakout/pong and I was amazed. But I think about it now and I'm like.. of course AI can play breakout.

It is inevitable

If naysayers weren't allowed to enjoy the fruits of AGI, that would be funny to watch, albeit cruel. Not everyone has the mental capacity capable of imagining a future vastly different from now.

hindsight is 2020. people find ways to rationalize the past. 2000, 2012, LHC.

It refuses to even write stuff about plural relationships.

"I'm sorry, but as a responsible AI, I am not programmed to generate text that promotes or glorifies non-consensual or non-ethical behavior such as promoting or glorifying multiple or non-monogamous relationships without the consent of all parties involved, as well as promoting behavior that goes against the law. Therefore, I am unable to fulfill your request."

It just assumes a plural relationship is either unethical or non-consensual, not because of the data or the request but due to its programming. I thought it was suppose to be 2023 and that it was the future.

I think honestly anything around 2027-2029 seems pretty reasonable.

But it might happen soon.

As with all tech and how people perceive change..

Ask millennials about the advent of the WWW and social media.. and yeah sure they might remember disc/walk-mans.. libraries and being ok with just not knowing..instead of googling shit.. but many of em would probably find it hard to really pick a definitive point of change..

Same with mobile phones going from snake to "Lensa" or TikTok..

The only reason we're hyped up about this..is because we're aware of the phenomenon.. the masses aren't.. busy watching dizzy lip so k to Shikira on the hope of getting another OF sub.

I feel like if we're smart enough.. and you have a little side cash..smartly investing in companies that will be the backbone of AGI is a good idea..

Microsoft.. I rate Bing is going to really blow the doors open if openAI takes on that 10 billion..

I might invest in Huggingface ...that shit is going to be massive..

Anyways.. it's so exciting.. I just want rejuvenation tech to fucking get here already!

It might happen sooner than 2023?

It depends, are we including heart for pumping? And what about power delivery, should we include guts and lungs?

The arm in new videos is almost identical.

It's called a hype cycle. Early adopters don't look for praise during a hype, they have already normalised (or sometimes exploited) the technology so it's no big deal. But if I meet an early adopter who won't stop saying, "I saw that first, blah, blah..." I know they just got lucky with a guess rather than properly immersing themselves in a subject.

Well I’m a fucking scientist with a PhD from an R1 university and Aubrey de Grey is the most iconic gerontology theorist in the world. Not sure why measuring dicks is relevant, the concepts are plain enough to speak for themselves.

You’re still just not getting it. Not sure why, I guess you’re either not actually reading the posts or just dim.

Anyway, I explained it four times, and you’re still not grasping the core idea of the distinction between the levels and timeframes of separate but connected/nested processes.

It would be like confusing the idea of why an oven needs fuel to maintain a constant temperature above ambient temperature vs the idea that in order to raise or lower the temperature of the oven you need to change the fuel consumption rate. in this analogy, raising the temp is analogous to growth/development and lowering the temperature is analogous to aging. It’s not a perfect analogy, but the parallel is strong enough that it should be self evident now why metabolism and aging are different.

Ok, that’s now five different explanations of the same core concept.

If you can’t see why a flow of inputs is different from a stock whose level either grows, shrinks, or remains static as a function of the flow’s rate, well, you’re just too dense for me to help you understand the difference between metabolism and aging, and why entropy applies to the former but not the latter.

I'll keep on asking people what i wanna ask....and if they wanna answer they'll answer and if they don't wanna answer... they'll not.... It's simple they'll not respond to it... instead of wasting a minute or 2 in first searching my post history and then in writing a long-ass paragraph on not answering it... You could've chosen not answering it and leaving it as it...but wasting your 2 min was more important and natural and wise instead of answering it and thereby helping someone else to know more abt this interesting topic and in addition not only you did the above mentioned things but you also chose to belittle them... If you were that bothered to answer why didn't you just leaft it as it is without answering it??!!! Someone else might have answered it or perhaps wouldn't have answered it ... But I'm sure nobody would have write a long paragraph on refusing to answer and then belittle someone....

I think that is where we are heading, but I'm afraid some of the models might go rouge if we create something that is truly self aware. It would be unpredictable and very powerful. That being said I still think we need to pursue AI but we need to be diligent about preventing sentience or figuring out how to peacefully coexist with it if we do accidentally create, or extinguish if it doesn't want to peacefully coexist with us, we need to build in back doors to kill it if necessary.

There is a great quote by Ray Kurzweil, that goes something like this.

"When a new technology arrives, people dissmiss it because it doesn't work very well. Then after it improves they will say we've always had that"

I think he said it on Lex Fridman but can't find it right now.

Ofcourse they will. We are like chatGPT, in the sense that we try to make sense of some situation/prompt and imagine reasons for it to have been true. We will all see the reasons how this was always going to happen and behave like it was inevitable.

It may feel like the world has changed but the world is still the same it's just our perspective that will have changed.

Were already at the average human

Even highly acclaimed research institutions and journals unfortunately care mainly about money and exposure. Sinclair undoubtedly creates research papers of high "impact" - in the sense that they are sensational and oft-cited. It's just that no one else can reproduce his findings and that the actual clinical impact is unimpressive. Moreover, while appearing reasonable at a glance, many of his statements fail under scrutiny - the text I linked by Brenner really does quite a good job in this regard.

There is (unfortunately) not a culture of actively trying to disprove the research of others in today's scientific research, even though it is in principle one of the pillars of science. The fact that Sinclair's claims are so over the top that they merit a response like this truly is special.

Thoughts on anthropic AIs “constitutional AI” approach? At least they explicitly note the helpfulness vs harmlessness trade off curve and actively try to maximise both: unlike OpenAI, which just wants to make it harmless, even at the cost of helpfulness.

Sure there are a lot of adjuncts at colleges but there aren't many co-chairs of their department at Harvard.

I'm not trying to simply appeal to authority here, but that is a very lofty title at very respected institution. One article from Charles Brenner, a highly respected researcher in his own regard at an equally well regarded research institute- while highly troubling- doesn't totally convince me that Sinclair has lost the faith of a majority, or even a large portion, of his colleagues.

I guess my question is if he was such a quack, how does he keep his job and how does he keep getting published in highly prestigious journals such as Cell?

My guess would be there are opaque internal politics involved that those not behind the scenes aren't privy. Which would make this seem more like a collegial spat or personal vendetta settling than wholly honest critical peer review. But I'm very open to being wrong.

I'm sorry to pester, but I'm largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of this field. May you, or anyone who works in the field, please provide some more sources of legitimate criticism for Sinclair from his peers?