Yeah, that sounds reasonable if Dr Evil was in charge but in reality I don't think anyone would sterilize the whole population to save some time on their schedule.

>After they start not needing us for anything what makes you think they’ll keep baggage like us around? All 8 billion of us? You think they gonna let us leech for old time’s sake?

​

The reason I think they will help humanity is that once production becomes fully automatic, it becomes very easy. All it would take for them is to tell the AI to do it, at basically no cost (since money itself will be useless at that point).

Consider this situation for instance:

AI: Sir, people are starving and need food. We have an estimation that we can solve it within a day at no cost without delaying other plans and you get all the credit for feeding everyone.

​

What reason would anyone have to answer no in that situation?

I think billionaires are greedy but they aren't psychotic sadists, think how much of an asshole you'd have to be to not share something that it's basically infinite and free for you.

How can I upload images for variants? I couldn't find that function on the web version.

Yeah I also thought about open sea 'floating housing' and underwater.

There's plenty of options but I still think that comes after all jobs are already taken.

Buying land. I think that's the last thing AI figures out how to make more of.

Not that it won't eventually though.

>Behavioral outputs ARE all that matters. Who cares if a self driving car “really understands driving” if it’s safer and faster than a human driver.
>
>It’s just a question of, how accurate are these models at approximating human behavior? Once it gets past the point of anyone of us being able to tell the difference, then it has earned the badge of intelligence in my mind.

I think the intelligence itself comes from who wrote the ML data the AI was trained on, be that whatever it is. It doesn't have to be actually intelligent on it's own it only has to learn to mimic the intelligent process behind the data.

In other words it only has to know "what" not "how".

In terms of utility I don't think there's any difference either, people seem to be concerned with the moral implications of it.

For instance I wouldn't be concerned with a robot that is programmed to fake feeling pain. But I would be concerned with a robot that actually does.

The problem how the hell could we tell the difference? Specially if it improved on it's own and we don't understand exactly how. It will tell you that it does feel it and it would seem genuine, but if it was like GPT-3 that would be a lie.

And since we're dealing with billions of parameters now it becomes next an impossible task to distinguish between the two.

Sure but the point is that it may not be up to us anymore. There may be nothing else people can do once AI starts improving on it's own.

That's not what it does though. It's copying their odds of saying certain words in a certain order. It's not like a parrot/recording.

I also believe that human general intelligence is in essence geometric intelligence.

But what happens is, whoever wrote the text they're using as data, put the words in the order that it did for an intelligent reason. So when you copy the likely ordering of words you are also copying the reasoning behind their sentences.

So in a way it is borrowing your intelligence when it selects the next words based on the same criteria you did while writing the original text data.

Doesn't that lead to overly generic answers? Like it will pick what most people would likely say rather than the truth? I remember making a model that filled in with the most common next word and it would get stuck going "is it is it is it..." and so on. I guess that method could result in very good answers but that will depend on the data itself.

We should just change the community banner to a big "we told you so" when it finally happens.

Yeah I was thinking about this the other day. You don't have to know what multiplication means if you knew all possible outcomes by memory. It's kind of a primitive approach but usage wise it would be indistinguishable from multiplication. I think the same thing may apply to many different concepts.

If it truly can improve upon itself and there isn't a wall of sorts then I guess this is it right? What else is there to do even?

Wouldn't it be kinda funny if it turns out the key to AGI was "Make language model bigger" all along?

I didn't say it wasn't intelligence, just that it's not doing what OP asked it to.

If I told you to multiply 30*3 in your head, you could just remember the result is 90 and with no knowledge of multiplication answer based on the memory rather than doing the math.

The prompt was asking it to imagine and instead it is only worried about convincing the user that it did using text references, not actually performing the task.

Well it would be comparable to someone asking you to imagine something and instead of doing it you formulate a text response most similar to what you'd expect someone who did imagine it would answer. I agree it's not an easy thing to distinguish it.

This is not imagination, this is the most likely answer to the prompt "imagine something" in relation to the text data. It's evaluating probability of so and so text appearing, not obeying your commands.

Edit: In a sense, it could be considered similar to imagination since whatever text it is using as reference was written by someone who did imagine something, so in a way it's picking bits and parts of someone's insights into imagination but the engine itself isn't imagining anything on it's own.

GPT-3 uses sequences to 'predict' what word comes next.

You could probably train it to predict the weather by training it with a database of sequences of weather events and it should output the most likely to happen next based on past reference.

This principle should in theory work for everything as long as your database accurately describes the events in an understandable sequence of text.

>I can tell you that your username is AdditionalPizza,

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/xpt14q/interesting_exchange_with_characterai/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

This post of mine may be a little clarifying on their ability to understand your username. This isn't a good indication anymore, for all you know you may be talking to a bot right now and not even know it.

For now, there's still little tells that give it away. Like logic arguments seems to be too hard for engines, but I can't imagine that lasting much longer.(even then you may think you're talking to someone who is just stupid)

But yeah I can't think of any good solutions, it's a good rule to just be skeptical of everything in general.

Yeah specially in this sub, sometimes you'll get an answer and you'll be like "is this gpt-3?" and sometimes it is.

Also some people pretend to be robots which makes it extra confusing. LMAO

There's nothing we can do might as well get used to it.

Awareness would be just the representation of the data without the observer.

For instance, you can open a page of a .pdf document, in that moment the computer is "aware" of that data, but it can't actually "read" the document by itself.

Another good example would be dreaming, you can be "aware" (have memories and neurons firing) without being conscious to experience what's going on.

Sentience confirmed, someone call Blake Lemoine.

My understanding of it is the "observer" itself. The thing you call "me" that's reading this right now.

My best interpretation of this article in a nutshell is:

"Consciousness is the ability to remember your own internal and subjective processes, creating subjective awareness"

But that begs the question, what is remembering? Is memory itself remembering other memories?

That would be my definition of self awareness, not consciousness.

TBH I see more complex arguments from random people on this sub, maybe you guys should be writing these articles instead.