Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Y
Posts
1
Comments
427
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Matter to whom?

    We are discussing whether creating an AGI is possible, not whether humans can tell the difference (which is a separate question).

    Most people can’t identify a correct mathematical equation from an incorrect one, especially when the solution is irrelevant to their lives. Does that mean that doing mathematics correctly “doesn’t matter?” It would be weird to enter a mathematical forum and ask “Why does it matter?”

    Whether we can build an AGI is just a curious question, whose answer for now is No.

    P.S. defining AGI in economic terms is like defining CPU in economic terms: pointless. What is “economically important labor”? Arguably the most economically important labor is giving birth, raising your children, and supporting your family. So would an AGI be some sort of inorganic uterus as well as a parent and a lover? Lol.

    That’s a pretty tall order, if AGI also has to do philosophy, politics, and science. All fields that require the capacity for rational deliberation and independent thought, btw.

  • The discussion is over whether we can create an AGI. An AGI is an inorganic mind of some sort. We don’t need to make an AGI. I personally don’t care. The question was can we? The answer is No.

  • A malfunctioning nuke can also destroy humanity. So could a toaster, under the right circumstances.

    The question is not whether we can create a machine that can destroy humanity. (Yes.) Or cure cancer. (Maybe.) The question is whether we can create a machine that can think. (No.)

    What I was discussing earlier in this thread was whether we (scientists) can build an AGI. Not whether we can create something that looks like an AGI, or whether there’s an economic incentive to do so. None of that has any bearing.

    In English, the phrase “what most people mean when they say” idiomatically translates to something like “what I and others engaged in this specific discussion mean when we say.” It’s not a claim about how the general population would respond to a poll.

    Hope that helps!

  • Okay, we can create the illusion of thought by executing complicated instructions. But there’s still a difference between a machine that does what it’s told and one that thinks for itself. The fact that it might be crazy is irrelevant, since we don’t know how to make it, at all, crazy or not.

  • That’s fine, but most people (engaged in this discussion) aren’t interested in an illusion. When they say AGI, they mean an actual mind capable of rationality (which requires sensitivity and responsiveness to reasons).

    Calculators, LLMs, and toasters can’t think or understand or reason by definition, because they can only do what they’re told. An AGI would be a construct that can think for itself. Like a human mind, but maybe more powerful. That requires subjective understanding (intuitions) that cannot be programmed. For more details on why, see Gödel's incompleteness theorems. We can’t even axiomatize mathematics, let alone human intuitions about the world at large. Even if it’s possible we simply don’t know how.

  • Reasoning literally requires consciousness because it’s a fundamentally normative process. What computers do isn’t reasoning. It’s following instructions.

  • Hilarious.

  • The only way to create AGI is by accident. I can’t adequately stress how much we haven’t the first clue how consciousness works (appropriately called The Hard Problem). I don’t mean we’re far, I mean we don’t even have a working theory — just half a dozen untestable (if fascinating) hypotheses. Hell, we can’t even agree on whether insects have emotions (probably not?) let alone explain subjective experience.

  • No, it is not.

  • Religion is a monstrous evil.

  • A better analogy for AI is the discovery of asbestos or the invention of single-use plastics. Terrible fucking idea.

  • IQ is a very good indicator of cognitive abilities. It’s a poor indicator of kindness, morality, or honesty.

  • Americans are so weird about IQ. Yes, indeed, some brains work better than others — by avoiding lead poisoning or traumatic brain injuries, for instance, and by reading books, pursuing higher education, and enjoying a fulfilling social environment.

  • Can you clarify?

  • The photo is stock. They’re in their 40s so it could be lead. The US twin experienced multiple serious concussions, so that alone might explain a 16 point IQ difference.

  • How dare some people make an obviously correct moral decision that highlights my own inadequacies?

    Seriously though, I’m not even slightly vegan. I’m just also not a total fucking moron.