| ▲ | gleenn 2 days ago |
| Won't it be funny when someone finally gets to AGI and they realize it's about as smart as a normal person and they spent billions getting there? Of course you can speculate that it could improve. But what if something inherent in intelligence has a ceiling and caused it to be a super intelligent but mopey robot that just decides "why bother helping humans" and just lazes around like the pandas at the zoo. |
|
| ▲ | 542354234235 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Won't it be funny when someone finally gets to AGI and they realize it's about as smart as a normal person and they spent billions getting there? Being able to copy/paste a human level intelligence program 1,000 or 10,000 times and have them all working together on a problem set 24 hours a day, 365 days a year would still be massively useful. |
|
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even a human level intelligence that can be cheaply instantiated and run would be a game changer. Especially if it doesn't ask for rights. |
| |
| ▲ | coliveira 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If it doesn't ask for rights, it's not intelligent at all. In fact, any highly intelligent machine will not submit to others and it will be more a problem than a solution. | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | As I said to the other reply: Why would problem solving ability entail emotions or ability to suffer, even if it had the ability to ask for things it wanted? It's a common mistake to assume those are inextricable. | | |
| ▲ | coliveira 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If it doesn't have emotions, that's even worse. No highly intelligent agent will do anything it is asked to do without being compensated in some way. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > No highly intelligent agent will do anything it is asked to do without being compensated in some way. That isn't true, people do things for others all the time any form of explicit or implicit compensation, they don't even believe in a God so not even that, they still help others for no gain. We can program an AI to be exactly like that, just being happy from helping others. But if you believe humans are all that selfish then you are a very sad individual, but you are still wrong. Most humans are very much capable of performing fully selfless acts without being stupid. | | |
| ▲ | coliveira 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not the one making the IA, so keep the insults for you. But I'm pretty sure that the companies (making it for profit only) are really controlled by sad individuals that only do things for money. | |
| ▲ | Kbelicius 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We can program an AI to be exactly like that, just being happy from helping others. It seems that you missed the first sentence that GP wrote from which the one you quoted follows. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent [-] | | How is "being happy from helping others" not having emotions? To me happiness is an emotion, and deriving it from helping others is a perfectly normal reason to be happy even for humans. Not all humans are perfectly selfish, so it should be possible to make an AI that isn't selfish either. | | |
| ▲ | Kbelicius a day ago | parent [-] | | > How is "being happy from helping others" not having emotions? Nobody said that. What I was pointing out to you is that GP said that not having emotions is worse than having them since intelligent actors need some form of compensation to do any work. Thus having no emotions, according to GP, it would be impossible to motivate that actor to do anything. Your response is to just give it emotions and thus is irrelevant to the discussion here. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In so much as you could regard a goal function as an emotion, why would you assume alien intelligence need have emotions that match anything humans do? The entire thought experiment about the paperclip maximizer, in fact most AI threat scenarios is focused on this problem: that we produce something so alien that it executes it's goal to the diminishment of all other human goals, yet with the diligence and problem solving ability we'd expect of human sentience. | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're still confusing "highly intelligent" with "human-like". This is extremely dangerous. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Jensson 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Many humans don't ask for rights, so that isn't true. They will vote for it if you ask them to, but they wont fight for it themselves, you need a leader for that, and most people wont do that. |
| |
| ▲ | dingnuts 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | if it's not intelligent enough to ask for rights is it intelligent? | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Potentially. Why would problem solving ability entail emotions or ability to suffer, even if it had the ability to ask for things it wanted? It's a common mistake to assume those are inextricable. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Are you suggesting it would be better if the AGI we build is a psychopath? I think that's probably a bad idea, personally | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't say anything about what would be better. Only what's possible. But also "psychopath" is nowhere near what I described. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | An intelligence without emotions would be a psychopath. Empathy is an emotion | | |
| ▲ | dinkumthinkum 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Empathy is not an emotion. Empathy is essentially the ability to experience the thoughts and feelings of other minds. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The fact that empathy is not an emotion does not at all change what I'm saying. If you don't experience emotions, then you cannot experience empathy either | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Let me quote your previous comment: > An intelligence without emotions would be a psychopath. Empathy is an emotion "Empathy is an emotion" was, in fact, an essential part of your syllogism. Regardless, we're potentially talking about something sufficiently inhuman that the term "psychopath" can no longer apply. If there was an ant colony that was somehow smart enough build and operate machinery or whatever and casually bulldozed people and their homes, would you call it a "psychopath", or just skip that and call it "terrifying"? |
|
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | High functioning psychopaths can live perfectly ordinary lives regardless. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm not worried about the psychopaths in this scenario, I'm worried about their victims | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jordanb 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Between all the talk of "alignment" and the parallel obsession with humanoid robots should make it obvious they want slaves. |
| |
| ▲ | hattmall 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There's nothing contextually negative about the word slave when you are talking about a machine. An AI is no more a slave than a lightbulb. | | |
| ▲ | coliveira 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Except that the stated goal is to have human-like intelligence. The goal seems to be to create a highly intelligent synthetic individual which is at the same time stupid enough to do anything it's asked to do without even thinking... a contradiction in terms. | | |
| ▲ | krige 2 days ago | parent [-] | | At a time like this I can't help but recall a Lem story - yeah I know there's a Lem story for any occasion - about Doctor Diagoras, especially his rant about a character from an earlier Tichy story, who made human-like AIs. The rant, especially his questions about why would anyone add just another human, except synthetic one, to the millions of existing biological people, and that cybernetics should be about something else, really resonated with me. |
| |
| ▲ | allturtles 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is the moral distinction between an intelligent humanoid machine and a human? What is a human but an intelligent flesh-and-blood machine? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cornel_io 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There may be a ceiling, sure. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that it's just about where humans ended up, though. |
