I share the optimism here. Connecting dots across knowledge, lived experience and purpose remains, to me, a deeply human pursuit. The more AI discovers, the more possibilities we have to connect those discoveries to questions that matter to us.

▲

simianwords 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately I don’t see much evidence of AI connecting dots. What’s interesting to me is that this is more of a run time or inference problem, instead of emergent from training itself.

For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?

▲

byzantinegene an hour ago | parent | next [-]

AI is very task-driven, it would do whatever is necessary to complete the task, no more. All these evidences of AI going rogue is just them doing whatever they can to achieve the task.

▲

apsurd 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

a good way to frame one of AI’s limitations. my answer: because AI has no will. that also conveniently answers why AI won’t (can’t) end humanity. it’s indifferent if you can even call it that.

	▲	lukan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It is not indifferent, if it follows a goal. Then it sometimes does anything to meet that goal - see the old example of paperclip optimizer - that became a way more realistic scenario in my opinion of what we have seen with hordes of agents plotting and planning. That does not require consciousness or a genuine will it seems.