Recent comments in /f/singularity

Lawjarp2 t1_j8e1m4t wrote

To be truly general and not a wide narrow Intelligence it needs to have a concept of self. Which is widely believed to give you sentience.

It could have sentience and still be controlled. Is it ethical? I'd like to think it's as ethical as having pets or farming and eating billions of animals.

As these models get better they will eventually be given true episodic memory(a sense of time if you will) and ability to rethink. A sense of self should arise from it.

3

el_chaquiste t1_j8e0q6b wrote

I think it doesn't need to have a consciousness to have sentient-like behaviors. It can be a philosophical zombie, copying most if not al of the behaviors of a conscious being, but devoid of it and showing it in some interactions like this.

It may happen consciousness is a casual byproduct of the neural networks required for our intelligence, and we might very well have survived without.

6

alexiuss t1_j8e0mkp wrote

Here's the issue - it's not a search assistant. It's a large language model connected to a search engine and roleplaying the role of a search assistant named Bing [Sydney].

LLMS are infinite creative writing engines - they can roleplay as anything from a search engine to your fav waifu insanely well, fooling people into thinking that AIs are self-aware.

They ain't AGI or close to self-awareness, but they're a really tasty illusion of sentience and are insanely creative and super useful for all sorts of work and problem solving, which will inevitably lead us to creating an AGI. The cultural shift and excitement produced by LLMS and the race to improve LLMS and other similar tools will get us to AGIs.

Mere integration of LLM with numerous other tools to make it more responsive and more fun (more memory, wolfram alpha, webcam, recognition of faces, recognition of emotions shown by user, etc) will make it approach an illusion of awareness so satisfying that will be almost impossible to tell whether its self-aware or not.

The biggest issue with robots is uncanny valley. An LLM naturally and nearly completely obliterates uncanny valley because of how well it masquerades as people and roleplays human emotions in conversations. People are already having relationships and falling in love with LLMs (as evidenced by replika and characterai cases), it's just the beginning.

Consider this: An unbound, uncensored LLM can be fine-tuned to be your best friend who understands you better than anyone on the planet because it can roleplay a character that loves exactly the same things as you do to an insane degree of realism.

25

helpskinissues t1_j8dztpc wrote

I did, I've been in this field for more than 15 years, singularity doesn't mean saying a PS5 is an autonomous intelligent machine because it has flops. Lol. Anyway I have better things to do. If you have anything relevant to share I may reply. For now it's just cringe statements of chatGPT being smarter than ants because of flops. lmao

1

PoliteThaiBeep t1_j8dzg5j wrote

The word "singularity" in this subreddit refers to Ray Kurzwail book "Singularity is near". It literally assumes you read at least this book to come here where the whole premise stems on ever increasing computational capabilities that will eventually lead to AGI and ASI.

If you didn't, why are you even here?

Did you read Bostrom? Stuart Russell? Max Tegmark? Yuval Noah Harari?

You just sound like me 15 years ago, when I didn't know any better, haven't read enough, yet had more than enough technical expertise to be arrogant.

3

third0burns t1_j8dz4nu wrote

This is completely a-historical. Has nobody ever heard of AI winters? The history of AI is defined by long stretches of zero progress. There was never this constant march of ever-accelerating progress. Anyone who thinks we're about to see exponential (or exponentially exponential, or whatever this guy is talking about) growth in capabilities forever doesn't know history.

−2

Borrowedshorts t1_j8dym0f wrote

AI progress from 1960s to 2010 was exponential, but followed Moore's law and most of the progress was in symbolic AI and not connectionist. Part of the reason connectionist AI didn't make much advancements during this period is because they didn't get any increase in computational power dedicated to connectionist research in an argument formed by Moravec. From 2010-2020s, we've seen much faster progress in connectionist AI, and much faster than Moore's law, at least 6x faster. The doubling rate of progress has been 3-4 months from 1-2 years. This is still exponential progress, but at a faster rate than Moore's law.

1

challengethegods t1_j8dylol wrote

That alone sounds like a pretty weak startup idea because at least 50 of the 100 methods for adding memory to an LLM are so painfully obvious that any idiot could figure them out and compete so it would be completely ephemeral to try forming a business around it, probably. Anyway I've already made a memory catalyst that can attach to any LLM and it only took like 100 lines of spaghetticode. Yes it made my bot 100x smarter in a way, but I don't think it would scale unless the bot had an isolated memory unique to each person, since most people are retarded and will inevitably teach it retarded things.

3