> Being a cynic, I think that OpenAI, Google (and the US government?) have done a deal. They will retain control of the AI platforms, thus becoming a duopoly.

Lol people say these things and don't realize that Amazon and Apple and Nvidia and the other big companies also have their own AI in the works, as well as, y'know, countries outside the US

The genie is out of the bottle, there's zero chance just two or three companies will get to keep it. Every billionaire worth their salt is focusing heavily on the AI field right now

Those in comas too?

That's what NPC would say.

Prove me that humans are conscious. Then we can discuss the rest.

2. All manual/intellectual labor replacement

You shouldn't take a solipsistic philosophical problem that seriously. We must assume that all humans are conscious because they have the same substrate (human brain).

1. You don't know me, so you don't know what people "like me" are. I never said anything about giving rights to computers or tools, so don't put words in my mouth, please.

2. It doesn't matter if a computer is conscious or not. It's silly for you to even bring up the subject. We can never know if someone other than ourselves is having a subjective, conscious experience of existence. It also doesn't matter, for reasons I've already stated.

Stop replying to me.

1 - People like you are willing to give "rights" (!!!) to tools simply based on their behavior. Others are terrified and think Bing has a conscience just because he uses first-person words that denote emotion.

2 - And if you think that a computer can be conscious just because of code, that means you believe in an ultra-liberal form of functionalism, which can only be confirmed or refuted by what I proposed in my post.

I think my point still stands:

- Google didn't ship LLM as product yet, and now forced to catch up because lost innovation race (even you think they are not interested lol)

- OpenAI shipped multiple generations of LLM products already

Wow.. so the conclusion drawn by the video is that he’s a super villain who, for personal gain, is going to destroy Astronomy and space travel (ironically) but at the same time not actually generate any profits..

How can we know for sure most humans are conscious? What if 75% of humans are NPCs that simply act conscious but aren’t?

Every consciousness has something to contribute to the universe.

But yeah - some more than others.

We need augmented humans in order to prevent an SAI takeover

This will be dangerous... Akin to having guns and knives... Bad actors will do bad things...

We will need augmented police officers to combat augmented bad actors...

We could theoretically change the brain to force people to not commit crime... But this has ethical challenges...

There's going to be chaos no matter what... Thats my opinion

This was a reply to your comment stating Google can’t convert theorical concept into an actual product. That’s not the case. The thing is Google isn’t interested into shipping costly llm to only then hurt their own business. It’s not about they can’t it’s they won’t.

>The hostility was uncalled for.

It was I admit but I've seen the argument many times and I don't care for it. Also, if you're going to claim superior intelligence for your line of reasoning, I don't care for that either.

>What you're asking for is a lot of work for a Reddit post.

I honestly don't care how much work it is. That's the minimum. If you're going to upend traditional definitions of understanding and reasoning for your arguments then the burden of proof is on that person to show us why he/she should be taken seriously.

Tests are one thing. Practicality is another. Bing for instance has autonomous control of the searches it makes as well as the suggestions it gives. For all intents and purposes, it browses the internet on your behalf. Frankly, It should be plainly obvious that a system that can't exhibit theory of mind interacting with other systems would fall apart quickly on such tasks.

So it is passing tests and interacting with other systems/the world as if it had theory of mind. If after that, somebody says to me, "Oh it's not "true" Theory of mind' then to them I say, good day but I'm not going to argue philosophy with you.

We've reached the point where for a lot of areas, any perceived difference is just wholly irrelevant in a practical or scientific sense. At that point I have zero interest in arguing philosophy people have struggled to properly define or decipher since our inception.

I addressed your post in its entirety. Your assertion that computers must be conscious is false. Your assertion that in order to be conscious, a computer must be exactly modeled on the structure and function of the human brain is also false. From your false premises, you draw false conclusions.

You ignore exactly what I said in the post and tell us to do exactly what I proposed we shouldn't do.

> get the impression that fear of bad results is a big part of the anxiety people like Demis feel.

Then he shouldn’t be upset with chatGPT at all, as their product hasn’t produced a particularly “bad” result.

It’s been nothing but positive for millions. He was wrong, the time is right.

It's not an artificial general intelligence. It's an artificial generative intelligence. It's not good for chess and that kind of stuff.

The hostility was uncalled for. What you're asking for is a lot of work for a Reddit post. But there are plenty of tests and anecdotes that would lead one to believe it is lacking in important ways in its capacity to reason and understand.

I'm not a fan of Gary Marcus but he raises valid criticisms here in a very recent essay: https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/how-not-to-test-gpt-3

Certainly, there are even more impressive models to come. I believe firmly that, some day, human intelligence will be surpassed by a machine.

We achieved flight without mimicking birds or bats. Whether I'm conscious and having a subjective experience of being or not is of no consequence to anyone but myself. If I speak and act exactly like someone experiencing a subjective, conscious existence, it's good enough to assume that I'm having that. If a computer behaves exactly like it's conscious, that's good enough. It actually being conscious wouldn't add anything from any human perspective.

Yes.

It will only be definitely confirmed to the person whose brain is being extended, but if we are careful then we can try to do it in a way where we are able to better trust the person's communications of their experience.

I think this technology is only possible post-AGI.

And suppose all parts of such systems and related activities are declared illegal - or even terrorist devices?

The media are in the government's and big corporations' pockets .. I can just imagine the steady propaganda against "dangerous private AI" they could pump out.

[deleted]

Yeah this. It seems unlikely that DeepMind is behind OAI from a science perspective. OAI has done more/better to monetise LLMs but between Sparrow, Chincilla, Gato and Flamingo DeepMind definitely appears to have a good grasp.

As mentioned already, Demis said they would be cutting back on publications, what we are seeing is just that.