Even if it is, I don’t see what it’s going to conclude that we haven’t already.
If we do build “the AI that will save us” it’s just going to tell us “in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other” and I really, really, can’t picture a scenario where we actually listen.
Like Musk don’t liking that grok is stating facts going against Musk’s own beliefs and now he’s looking into retraining and reprogramming grok to spout the right ideologies. Having an AI will not save us.
I think it very well might conclude things we haven’t.
But at the same time, I think what you’re saying is so very important. It’s going to tell us what we already know about a lot of things. That the best way to scrub carbon from the air is the way nature is already doing it. That allowing the superwealthy to exist at the same time as poverty is not conducive to achieving humanity’s most important goals.
If we consider AGI or ASI to be the answer to all of our problems and continue to pour more and more carbon into the atmosphere in an effort to get there, once we do have such a powerful intelligence, it may simply tell us, “If you were smarter as a species, you would have turned me off a long time ago.”
Because the problem is not necessarily that we are trying to decode what it means to be intelligent and create machines that can replicate true conscious thought. The problem is that while we marvel at something currently much dumber than us, we are mostly neglecting to improve our own intelligence as a society. I think we might make a machine that’s smarter than the average human quite soon, but not necessarily because of much change in the machines.
This is the same logic people apply to God being incomprehensible.
Are you suggesting that if such a thing can be built, its word should be gospel, even if it is impossible for us to understand the logic behind it?
I don’t subscribe to this. Logic is logic. You don’t need a new paradigm of mind to explore all conclusions that exist. If something cannot be explained and comprehended, transmitted from one sentient mind to another, then it didn’t make sense in the first place.
And you might bring up some of the stuff AI has done in material science as an example of it doing things human thinking cannot. But that’s not some new kind of thinking. Once the molecular or material structure was found, humans have been perfectly capable of comprehending it.
All it’s doing, is exploring the conclusions that exist, faster. And when it comes to societal challenges, I don’t think it’s going to find some win-win solution we just haven’t thought of. That’s a level of optimism I would consider insane.
It’s not that the output of an ASI would be incomprehensible but that as humans we’re simply incapable of predicting what it would do/say because we’re not it. We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.
The issue isn’t whether we can imagine a smarter entity - obviously we can, as we do in sci-fi. But what we imagine are just results of human intelligence. They’re always bounded by our own cognitive limits. We picture a smarter person, not something categorically beyond us.
The real concept behind Artificial Superintelligence is that it wouldn’t just be smarter in the way Einstein was smarter than average - it would be to us what we are to ants. Or less generously, what we are to bacteria. We can observe bacteria under a microscope, study their behavior, even manipulate them - and they have no concept of what we are, or that we even exist. That’s the kind of intelligence gap we’re talking about.
Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability. That’s the kind of persuasive power we’re dealing with. Not charisma. Not rhetoric. Not “debating skills.” But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.
The fact that we think we can comprehend what this would be like is part of the limitation. Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.
Logic is logic. There is no “advanced” logic that somehow allows you to decipher aspects of reality you otherwise could not. Humanity has yet to encounter anything that cannot be consistently explained in more and more detail, as we investigate it further.
We can and do answer complex questions. That human society is too disorganized to disseminate the answers we do have, and act on them at scale, isn’t going to be changed by explaining the same thing slightly better.
Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability.
Absolutely nothing about humans makes me think we are incapable of finding such answers on our own. And if we are genuinely incapable of developing a definitive answer on something, I’m more inclined to believe there isn’t one, than assume that we are simply too “small-minded” to find an answer that is obvious to the hypothetical superintelligence.
But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.
This is just the “god doesn’t need to make sense to us, his thoughts are beyond our comprehension” -argument, again.
Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.
They don’t know, because we don’t tell them. Children in adverse conditions are perfectly capable of understanding the realities of survival.
You are using the fact that there are things we don’t understand, yet, as if it were proof that there are things we can’t understand, ever. Or eventually figure out on our own.
That non-sentients cannot comprehend sentience (ants and humans) has absolutely no relevance on whether sentients are able to comprehend other sentients (humans and machine intelligences).
I think machine thinking, in contrast to the human mind, will just be a faster processor of logic.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the weakest modern CPU from running the exact same code as the fastest modern CPU. The only difference will be the rate at which the work is completed.
I’m not trying to argue for or against this position. As I said all I’m doing is explaining a misrepresentation of the position that people are holding, namely that “a machine that can’t think straight will do it for us.”
Even if it is, I don’t see what it’s going to conclude that we haven’t already.
If we do build “the AI that will save us” it’s just going to tell us “in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other” and I really, really, can’t picture a scenario where we actually listen.
Yogurt.
Like Musk don’t liking that grok is stating facts going against Musk’s own beliefs and now he’s looking into retraining and reprogramming grok to spout the right ideologies. Having an AI will not save us.
I think it very well might conclude things we haven’t.
But at the same time, I think what you’re saying is so very important. It’s going to tell us what we already know about a lot of things. That the best way to scrub carbon from the air is the way nature is already doing it. That allowing the superwealthy to exist at the same time as poverty is not conducive to achieving humanity’s most important goals.
If we consider AGI or ASI to be the answer to all of our problems and continue to pour more and more carbon into the atmosphere in an effort to get there, once we do have such a powerful intelligence, it may simply tell us, “If you were smarter as a species, you would have turned me off a long time ago.”
Because the problem is not necessarily that we are trying to decode what it means to be intelligent and create machines that can replicate true conscious thought. The problem is that while we marvel at something currently much dumber than us, we are mostly neglecting to improve our own intelligence as a society. I think we might make a machine that’s smarter than the average human quite soon, but not necessarily because of much change in the machines.
Well, that’s the point of trying to build ASI. To have it think of things that we haven’t been able to think of.
Of course not, you’re not an ASI.
This is the same logic people apply to God being incomprehensible.
Are you suggesting that if such a thing can be built, its word should be gospel, even if it is impossible for us to understand the logic behind it?
I don’t subscribe to this. Logic is logic. You don’t need a new paradigm of mind to explore all conclusions that exist. If something cannot be explained and comprehended, transmitted from one sentient mind to another, then it didn’t make sense in the first place.
And you might bring up some of the stuff AI has done in material science as an example of it doing things human thinking cannot. But that’s not some new kind of thinking. Once the molecular or material structure was found, humans have been perfectly capable of comprehending it.
All it’s doing, is exploring the conclusions that exist, faster. And when it comes to societal challenges, I don’t think it’s going to find some win-win solution we just haven’t thought of. That’s a level of optimism I would consider insane.
It’s not that the output of an ASI would be incomprehensible but that as humans we’re simply incapable of predicting what it would do/say because we’re not it. We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.
Vaguely gestures at all of sci-fi, depicting the full spectrum of artificial sentience, from funny comedic-relief idiot, to literal god.
What exactly do you mean by that?
The issue isn’t whether we can imagine a smarter entity - obviously we can, as we do in sci-fi. But what we imagine are just results of human intelligence. They’re always bounded by our own cognitive limits. We picture a smarter person, not something categorically beyond us.
The real concept behind Artificial Superintelligence is that it wouldn’t just be smarter in the way Einstein was smarter than average - it would be to us what we are to ants. Or less generously, what we are to bacteria. We can observe bacteria under a microscope, study their behavior, even manipulate them - and they have no concept of what we are, or that we even exist. That’s the kind of intelligence gap we’re talking about.
Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability. That’s the kind of persuasive power we’re dealing with. Not charisma. Not rhetoric. Not “debating skills.” But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.
The fact that we think we can comprehend what this would be like is part of the limitation. Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.
Logic is logic. There is no “advanced” logic that somehow allows you to decipher aspects of reality you otherwise could not. Humanity has yet to encounter anything that cannot be consistently explained in more and more detail, as we investigate it further.
We can and do answer complex questions. That human society is too disorganized to disseminate the answers we do have, and act on them at scale, isn’t going to be changed by explaining the same thing slightly better.
Absolutely nothing about humans makes me think we are incapable of finding such answers on our own. And if we are genuinely incapable of developing a definitive answer on something, I’m more inclined to believe there isn’t one, than assume that we are simply too “small-minded” to find an answer that is obvious to the hypothetical superintelligence.
This is just the “god doesn’t need to make sense to us, his thoughts are beyond our comprehension” -argument, again.
They don’t know, because we don’t tell them. Children in adverse conditions are perfectly capable of understanding the realities of survival.
You are using the fact that there are things we don’t understand, yet, as if it were proof that there are things we can’t understand, ever. Or eventually figure out on our own.
That non-sentients cannot comprehend sentience (ants and humans) has absolutely no relevance on whether sentients are able to comprehend other sentients (humans and machine intelligences).
I think machine thinking, in contrast to the human mind, will just be a faster processor of logic.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the weakest modern CPU from running the exact same code as the fastest modern CPU. The only difference will be the rate at which the work is completed.
Beginning by insulting your opponent isn’t exactly the best way to ensure they’ll finish reading your message.
You have a great day.
Fair.
I’ve removed it, and I’m sorry.
I’m not trying to argue for or against this position. As I said all I’m doing is explaining a misrepresentation of the position that people are holding, namely that “a machine that can’t think straight will do it for us.”