The thing that’s stopping anything like that is that the AI we have today is not intelligence in any sense of the word, despite the marketing and “journalism” hype to the contrary.
ChatGPT is predictive text on steroids.
Type a word on your mobile phone, then keep tapping the next predicted word and you’ll have some sense of what is happening behind the scenes.
The difference between your phone keyboard and ChatGPT? Many billions of dollars and unimaginable amounts of computing power.
It looks real, but there is nothing intelligent about the selection of the next word. It just has much more context to guess the next word and has many more texts to sample from than you or I.
There is no understanding of the text at all, no true or false, right or wrong, none of that.
AI today is Assumed Intelligence
Arthur C Clarke says it best:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
I don’t expect this to be solved in my lifetime, and I believe that the current methods of"intelligence " are too energy intensive to be scalable.
That’s not to say that machine learning algorithms are useless, there are significant positive and productive tools around, ChatGPT and its Large Language Model siblings not withstanding.
Source: I have 40+ years experience in ICT and have an understanding of how this works behind the scenes.
Nah, “consciousness” is just a buzzword with no concrete meaning. The path to AGI has no relevance to it at all. Even if we develop a machine just as intelligent as human beings, maybe even moreso, that can solve any arbitrary problem just as efficiently, mystics will still be arguing over whether or not it has “consciousness.”
we need to figure out what consciousness is and how to synthesize it
We don’t know what it is. We don’t know how it works. That is why
“consciousness” is just a buzzword with no concrete meaning
You’re completely correct. But you’ve gone on a very long rant to largely agree with the person you’re arguing against. Consciousness is poorly defined and a “buzzword” largely because we don’t have a fucking clue where it comes from, how it operates, and how it grows. When or if we ever define that properly, then we have a launching off point to compare from and have some hope of being able to engineer a proper consciousness in an artificial being. But until we know how it works, we’ll only ever do that by accident, and even that is astronomically unlikely.
We don’t know what it is. We don’t know how it works. That is why
If you cannot tell me what you are even talking about then you cannot say “we don’t know how it works,” because you have not defined what “it” even is. It would be like saying we don’t know how florgleblorp works. All humans possess florgleblorp and we won’t be able to create AGI until we figure out florgleblorp, then I ask wtf is florgleblorp and you tell me “I can’t tell you because we’re still trying to figure out what it is.”
You’re completely correct. But you’ve gone on a very long rant to largely agree with the person you’re arguing against.
If you agree with me why do you disagree with me?
Consciousness is poorly defined and a “buzzword” largely because we don’t have a fucking clue where it comes from, how it operates, and how it grows.
You cannot say we do not know where it comes from if “it” does not refer to anything because you have not defined it! There is no “it” here, “it” is a placeholder for something you have not actually defined and has no meaning. You cannot say we don’t know how “it” operates or how “it” grows when “it” doesn’t refer to anything.
When or if we ever define that properly
No, that is your first step, you have to define it properly to make any claims about it, or else all your claims are meaningless. You are arguing about the nature of florgleblorp but then cannot tell me what florgleblorp is, so it is meaningless.
This is why “consciousness” is interchangeable with vague words like “soul.” They cannot be concretely defined in a way where we can actually look at what they are, so they’re largely irrelevant. When we talk about more concrete things like intelligence, problem-solving capabilities, self-reflection, etc, we can at least come to some loose agreement of what that looks like and can begin to have a conversation of what tests might actually look like and how we might quantify it, and it is these concrete things which have thus been the basis of study and research and we’ve been gradually increasing our understanding of intelligent systems as shown with the explosion of AI, albeit it still has miles to go.
However, when we talk about “consciousness,” it is just meaningless and plays no role in any of the progress actually being made, because nobody can actually give even the loosest iota of a hint of what it might possibly look like. It’s not defined, so it’s not meaningful. You have to at least specify what you are even talking about for us to even begin to study it. We don’t have to know the entire inner workings of a frog to be able to begin a study on frogs, but we damn well need to be able to identify something as a frog prior to studying it, or else we would have no idea that the thing we are studying is actually a frog.
You cannot study anything without being able to identify it, which requires defining it at least concretely enough that we can agree if it is there or not, and that the thing we are studying is actually the thing we aim to study. We should I believe your florgleblorp, sorry, I mean “consciousness” you speak of, even exists if you cannot even tell me how to identify it? It would be like if someone insisted there is a florgleblorp hiding in my room. Well, I cannot distinguish between a room with or without a florgleblorp, so by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence. Similarly, if you cannot tell me how to distinguish between something that possesses this “consciousness” and something that does not, how to actually identify it in reality, then by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence.
It is entirely backwards and spiritualist thinking that is popularized by all the mystics to insist that we need to study something they cannot even specify what it is first in order to figure out what it is later. That is the complete reversal of how anything works and is routinely used by charlatans to justify pseudoscientific “research.” You have to specify what it is being talked about first.
The thing that’s stopping anything like that is that the AI we have today is not intelligence in any sense of the word, despite the marketing and “journalism” hype to the contrary.
ChatGPT is predictive text on steroids.
Type a word on your mobile phone, then keep tapping the next predicted word and you’ll have some sense of what is happening behind the scenes.
The difference between your phone keyboard and ChatGPT? Many billions of dollars and unimaginable amounts of computing power.
It looks real, but there is nothing intelligent about the selection of the next word. It just has much more context to guess the next word and has many more texts to sample from than you or I.
There is no understanding of the text at all, no true or false, right or wrong, none of that.
AI today is Assumed Intelligence
Arthur C Clarke says it best:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
I don’t expect this to be solved in my lifetime, and I believe that the current methods of"intelligence " are too energy intensive to be scalable.
That’s not to say that machine learning algorithms are useless, there are significant positive and productive tools around, ChatGPT and its Large Language Model siblings not withstanding.
Source: I have 40+ years experience in ICT and have an understanding of how this works behind the scenes.
I think you’re right. AGI and certainly ASI are behind one large hurdle: we need to figure out what consciousness is and how we can synthesize it.
As Qui-Gon Jinn said to Jar Jar Binks: the ability to speak does not make you intelligent.
Nah, “consciousness” is just a buzzword with no concrete meaning. The path to AGI has no relevance to it at all. Even if we develop a machine just as intelligent as human beings, maybe even moreso, that can solve any arbitrary problem just as efficiently, mystics will still be arguing over whether or not it has “consciousness.”
We don’t know what it is. We don’t know how it works. That is why
You’re completely correct. But you’ve gone on a very long rant to largely agree with the person you’re arguing against. Consciousness is poorly defined and a “buzzword” largely because we don’t have a fucking clue where it comes from, how it operates, and how it grows. When or if we ever define that properly, then we have a launching off point to compare from and have some hope of being able to engineer a proper consciousness in an artificial being. But until we know how it works, we’ll only ever do that by accident, and even that is astronomically unlikely.
If you cannot tell me what you are even talking about then you cannot say “we don’t know how it works,” because you have not defined what “it” even is. It would be like saying we don’t know how florgleblorp works. All humans possess florgleblorp and we won’t be able to create AGI until we figure out florgleblorp, then I ask wtf is florgleblorp and you tell me “I can’t tell you because we’re still trying to figure out what it is.”
If you agree with me why do you disagree with me?
You cannot say we do not know where it comes from if “it” does not refer to anything because you have not defined it! There is no “it” here, “it” is a placeholder for something you have not actually defined and has no meaning. You cannot say we don’t know how “it” operates or how “it” grows when “it” doesn’t refer to anything.
No, that is your first step, you have to define it properly to make any claims about it, or else all your claims are meaningless. You are arguing about the nature of florgleblorp but then cannot tell me what florgleblorp is, so it is meaningless.
This is why “consciousness” is interchangeable with vague words like “soul.” They cannot be concretely defined in a way where we can actually look at what they are, so they’re largely irrelevant. When we talk about more concrete things like intelligence, problem-solving capabilities, self-reflection, etc, we can at least come to some loose agreement of what that looks like and can begin to have a conversation of what tests might actually look like and how we might quantify it, and it is these concrete things which have thus been the basis of study and research and we’ve been gradually increasing our understanding of intelligent systems as shown with the explosion of AI, albeit it still has miles to go.
However, when we talk about “consciousness,” it is just meaningless and plays no role in any of the progress actually being made, because nobody can actually give even the loosest iota of a hint of what it might possibly look like. It’s not defined, so it’s not meaningful. You have to at least specify what you are even talking about for us to even begin to study it. We don’t have to know the entire inner workings of a frog to be able to begin a study on frogs, but we damn well need to be able to identify something as a frog prior to studying it, or else we would have no idea that the thing we are studying is actually a frog.
You cannot study anything without being able to identify it, which requires defining it at least concretely enough that we can agree if it is there or not, and that the thing we are studying is actually the thing we aim to study. We should I believe your florgleblorp, sorry, I mean “consciousness” you speak of, even exists if you cannot even tell me how to identify it? It would be like if someone insisted there is a florgleblorp hiding in my room. Well, I cannot distinguish between a room with or without a florgleblorp, so by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence. Similarly, if you cannot tell me how to distinguish between something that possesses this “consciousness” and something that does not, how to actually identify it in reality, then by Occam’s razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence.
It is entirely backwards and spiritualist thinking that is popularized by all the mystics to insist that we need to study something they cannot even specify what it is first in order to figure out what it is later. That is the complete reversal of how anything works and is routinely used by charlatans to justify pseudoscientific “research.” You have to specify what it is being talked about first.