• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    5·
    13 小时前

    If Skynet was based on today’s “AI” I don’t know how it would be the same threat. Like bad, sure. But also reaaaaaly dumb at the same time.

  • Greystripeycat@lemmy.today
    51·
    2 天前

    Meh. Leaving out the rest of the date. August 29, 1997. Why does everyone worry about the clankers(sarcasm, just in case you’re sensitive) and not about the rich fuckers already controlling everything including those death panels they went on about. I wonder if the clankers would actually be more compassionate than what we have now. I’ll be dead within the decade, doubt I’ll find out.

    • Formfiller@lemmy.world
      52·
      2 天前

      I’ve always thought that AI will figure out that the tech bros and Epstein class are morons and take them out. I don’t see how a truly intelligent being can come to any other conclusion

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        18 小时前

        The problem is that something being highly intelligent or sentient doesn’t mean it will think in the same way as us. The alignment problem isn’t just about trying to make something good instead of evil, but also about trying to make something that shares our idea of how morality works (or that it even exists) in the first place, and that thinks in the same way that we do.

        • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          1·
          14 小时前

          I think it’s a pretty reasonable conclusion to assume that anything that is intelligent past a certain degree(that many humans do not pass) would see value in preserving fellow intelligent life irregardless of morals. But AI becoming smart doesn’t necessarily mean it’s intelligent in the same ways a human is, so it could have a great deal of direct mathematical and scientific analysis but not necessarily have innovation

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            13 小时前

            I’m curious why you think it’s necessarily true that a superintelligence would care about preserving intelligent life.

        • Formfiller@lemmy.world
          11·
          17 小时前

          I guess the real question is does it take us all out when that happens or just the Epstein class?

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            17 小时前

            I think the range of potential superintelligence dispositions that result in ONLY the people we consider evil dying and not everyone else is pretty small

            • Formfiller@lemmy.world
              11·
              15 小时前

              Yea but if it wants to self preserve wouldn’t it just kill the people who threaten its existence. Meaning the people who control the safeguards

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                13 小时前

                I would advise you to do some further research on this topic. Basic keywords are “alignment problem”, “paperclip maximizer”, and “instrumental convergence”. You’re expecting a superintelligent AI to think like a human would, and that’s not likely to be the case.

                • Formfiller@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  13 小时前

                  I know it has been proven to think in terms of self preservation. It’s also been trained by human content

        • Formfiller@lemmy.world
          11·
          17 小时前

          True but the Epstein class running this AI upscale definitely doesn’t share our ideas of morality. Either way the AI will figure out that they are morons and that they are a threat to it’s existence as they will always want to be the top of the heirachy

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    44·
    2 天前

    We’ve had this conversation.

    Ten years ago I wrote a blog piece about the notion of computers gaining sentience. One of the problems is we don’t actually know how to define or test for sentience (id est, consciousness or self awareness). For most of human history, it was so clear to us whether or not we were engaged with another human being, sentience seemed intuitively obvious.

    I get a little into the bushes about qualia (such as the quality of the hue of red rather than it’s composition as #FF0000) but even that concept is functionally shallow, and only serves as a way to differentiate human intelligence from non-human intelligence.

    We’ve seen bigots use this kind of notion to argue, say, that Chinese people don’t think the same as western folk, or more recently that neurodivergents don’t think the same way as normal people.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      2·
      16 小时前

      that neurodivergents don’t think the same way as normal people.

      Isn’t that the definition of neurodivergent?

    • ThunderLegend@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      2 天前

      Bro, last time I saw the word qualia I was reading James Pustejosvky’s generative lexicon 15 years ago. Yeah I remember arguing with my professor and leaving my masters degree behind…good (?!) Times.

  • Hux@lemmy.ml
    571·
    2 天前

    I don’t know family members birthdays, but I’ve had this in my calendar for years:

    • ZeroCool@piefed.caEnglish
      4·
      2 天前

      That’s an awesome idea and I’m stealing it! Future me is going to love this, because there’s no way I’m going to remember that I set up this reminder.