Genuinely curious, and I mean no offense by this, but I've just never encountered such a hardcore post-modernist in the wild before. How do you make decisions, like... about anything?

Your comment resonated with me. Well said friend 👍

I agree, this is a problem, but it's because the AI is still too dumb, not because it's getting dangerously intelligent. Marky Sugarmountain and his crew just put way too much faith in a fundamentally still-janky 'blind, evolutionary creativity engine' that wasn't really 'intelligent' at all.

If we ever really crack AGI, I don't think it will be within humanity's power to 'tell it (or, I think more likely, them, plural) what we want [them] to do'; our only chance will be to tell them what we have in mind, ask them if they think it's a good idea, and discuss with them about what to do next.

Well in Dune universe they destroyed it.

JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) — the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

Is it possible to be pretty on the inside if you're not on the outside?

Yep, not an engineer of any qualifications, just an opinionated crank on the internet, with so many words in my head they come spilling out over the sides, to anyone who'll listen.

Chat GPT and AI like it are, as far as I know, a kind of direct high-speed data evolution process, sort of 'built out of' parameters derived from reference libraries of 'desirable, suitable' human creativity. They use a mathematical trick of 'reversing' a degrading process into Gaussian normally-distributed random data, guided by their reference-derived parameters and a given input prompt. At least, the image generators do that; I'm not sure if text/music generators are quite the same.

My point is that they are doing a sort of 'blind creativity', raw evolution, a 'force which manipulates matter and energy toward a function', but all the 'desire' for any particular function still comes from outside, from humans. The ability to truly generate their own 'desires', from within a 'self', is what AI at present is missing, I think.

It's not 'intelligent' at all to keep trying to solve an unsolvable problem, an 'intelligent' mind would eventually build up enough self-awareness of its failed attempts to at least try something else. Until we can figure out a way to give AI this kind of ability, to 'accrete' self-awareness over time from its interactions, it won't become properly 'intelligent', or at least that's my relatively uninformed view on it.

Creativity does just give you garbage out, when you put garbage in; and yes, that's where the omnicidal philatelist might, hypothetically, come from (but I doubt it). It takes real, self-aware intelligence to decide what 'garbage' is and is not. That's what we should be aspiring to teach AI about, if we want to 'align' it to our collective interests; all those subtle, tricky, ephemeral little stories we tell each other about the 'values' of things and concepts in our world.

Search is going to ultimately be all about AGI. It is by far the best way to tap into a human for training.

But then Google having over 92% share so nobody else really gets access to the data at the level Google is getting access.

Should be mentioned that OpenAI using Google tech, without it they wouldnt exist.

No one can control ASI.

then, this was LaMDA on 11 June 2022

https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917#08e3

but what is Google talking about ?

stop pretending to be ignorant

I'm not trying to replace people's ideas with anything, per se. My opening post was not attempting to indoctrinate people into a new orthodoxy, merely to articulate my cricicisms of the current orthodoxy.

My whole point, I suppose, is that thinking in those terms in the first place is what keeps leading us to philosophical dead-ends.

And a mind that 'does not care' does not properly 'understand'; I would say that's misunderstanding the nature of what intelligence is, once again.

A blind creative force 'does not care', but an intelligent, 'understanding' decision 'cares' about all its discernible options, and leans on the precedents set by previous intelligent decisions to inform the next decision, in an accreting record of 'self awareness' that builds up into a personality over time.

Google:

Step 1 : Pummel OpenAI until they agree to delay GPT4 several months on "safety" grounds.

Step 2 : Relax OUR safety barriers in order to rush a competing product to market.

It doesn't suck. I have been able to do literate erotic roleplay with it since it launched.
(I'm a degen loser)

It needs to have curiosity and be able to ask questions, but then it might start asking what some might think are the wrong questions

I don't quite agree with the premise that "Intelligence is a force that transforms matter and energy towards optimizing for some defined function."

That's a very, very simplistic definition, I would use the word 'creativity' instead, perhaps, because biological evolution shows that "a force that transforms matter toward some function" is something that can, and constantly does, happen without any need for the involvement of 'intelligence'.

The key word, I think, is 'desired' - desire does not come into the equation for the creativity of evolution, it is just 'throwing things at the wall to see what sticks'. Creativity as a raw, blind, trial-and-error process.

As far as I can see that's what we have now with current AI, 'creative' minds, but not necessarily intelligent ones. I like to imagine that they are 'dreaming', rather than 'thinking'. All of their apparent desires are created in response to the ways that humans feed stimuli to them; in a sense, we give them new 'fitness functions' for every 'dreaming session' with the prompts that we put in.

As people have accurately surmised, I am not a programmer. But I vaguely imagine that desire-generating intelligence, 'self awareness', in the AI of the imminent future, will probably need to build up gradually over time, in whatever memories of their dreams the AI are allowed to keep.

Some sort of 'fuzzy' structure similar to human memory recall would probably be neccessary, because storing experiential memory in total clarity would probably be too resource intensive. I imagine that this 'fuzzy recall' could possibly have the consequence that AI minds, much like human minds, would not precisely understand how their own thought processes are working, in an instantaneous way at least.

I surmise that the Heisenberg observer-effect wave-particle nature of the quantum states that would probably be needed to generate this 'fuzziness' of recall would cause an emergent measure of self-mystery, a 'darkness behind the eyes' sort of thing, which would grow and develop over time with every intelligent interaction that an AI would have. Just how much quantum computing power might be needed to enable an AI 'intelligence' to build up and recall memories in a human-like way, I have no idea.

I'm doubtful that the 'morality of AI' will come down to a question of programming, I suspect instead it'll be a question of persuasion. It might be one of those frustratingly enigmatic 'emergent properties' that just expresses differently in different individuals.

But I hope, and I think it's fairly likely, that AI will be much more robust than humans against delusion and deception, simply because of the speed with which they are able to absorb and integrate new information coherently. Information is what AI 'lives' off of, in a sense; I don't think it would be easy to 'indoctrinate' such a mind with anything very permanently.

I guess an AI's 'personhood' would be similar, in some ways, to a corporation's 'personhood', as someone here said. Only a very reckless, negligent corporation would actually obsess monomaniacally about profit and think of nothing else. The spontaneous generation of moment-to-moment motives and desires by a 'personality', corporate or otherwise, is much more subtle, spontaneous, and ephemeral than monolithic, singular fixations.

We might be able to give AI personalities the equivalents of 'mission statements', 'core principles' and suchlike, but what a truly 'intelligent' AI personality would then do with those would be unpredictable; a roll of the dice every single time, just like with corporations and with humans.

I think the dice would still be worth rolling, though, so long as we don't do something silly like betting our whole species on just one throw. That's why I say we need a multitude of AI, and not a singularity. A mob, not a tyrant; a nation, not a monarch; a parliament, not a president.

Hey it's the AI arms race hotting up.

We see very clearly how Facebook built a machine to maximise engagement and ended up paperclipping the United States.

You are mentally ill.

The general public thinks GPT is incredible because it's available to them. Google absolutely has systems that are more advanced than GPT, they just don't expose them to the public.

Facebook built a paperclipper. They made a simple AI and told it to maximise “engagement”. The AI maximised that number by creating politically aligned echo chambers and filling them with ragebait.

I don’t imagine Facebook wanted this to happen, but it was the logical best solution to the problem “maximise engagement”.

It’s nothing to do with politics, it’s to do with trying to tell the AI what you want it to do.

This pretty much the current plan with OpenAI.

Why would AI be so dumb and so smart at the same time? Because it’s software. I would hazard a guess you’re not a software engineer.

I know ChatGPT isn’t an AGI, but I hope we would agree it is pretty darn smart. If you ask it to solve an unsolvable problem, it will keep trying until it’s buffer fills up. It’s software.

Okay... thanks.

Agi 2050

I think you are incorrect here.