You're viewing part of a thread.
If it quacks like a duck it changes the entire global economy and can potentially destroy humanity. All while you go "ah but it's not really reasoning."
what difference does it make if it can do the same intellectual labor as a human? If I tell it to cure cancer and it does will you then say "but who would want yet another machine that just does what we say?"
your point reads like complete psuedointellectual nonsense to me. How is that economically valuable? Why are you asserting most people care about that and not the part where it cures a disease when we ask it to?
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!
If there's no way to tell the illusion from reality, tell me why it matters functionally at all.
what difference does true thought make from the illusion?
also agi means something that can do all economically important labor, it has nothing to do with what you said and that's not a common definition.
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.
Most people can’t identify a correct mathematical equation from an incorrect one
this is irrelevant, we're talking about something where nobody can tell the difference, not where it's difficult.
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.
it means a job. That's obviously not a job and obviously not what is meant, an interesting strategy from one who just used "what most people mean when they say"
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.
it just has to be at least as good as a human at manipulating the world to achieve its goals, I don't know of any other definition of agi that factors in actually meaningful tasks
an agi should be able to do almost any task a human can do at a computer. It doesn't have to be conscious and I have no idea why or where consciousness factors into the equation.
we're talking about something where nobody can tell the difference, not where it's difficult.
You’re missing the point. The existence of black holes was predicted long before anyone had any idea how to identify them. For many years, it was impossible. Does that mean black holes don’t matter? That we shouldn’t have contemplated their existence?
Seriously though, I’m out.
The existence of black holes has a functional purpose in physics, the existence of consciousness only has one to our subjective experience, and not one to our capabilities.
if I'm wrong list a task that a conscious being can do that an unconscious one is unable to accomplish.
if I'm wrong list a task that a conscious being can do that an unconscious one is unable to accomplish.
These have been listed repeatedly: love, think, understand, contemplate, discover, aspire, lead, philosophize, etc.
There are, in fact, very few interesting or important things that a non-thinking entity can do. It can make toast. It can do calculations. It can design highways. It can cure cancer. It can probably fold clothes. None of this shit is particularly exciting. Just more machines doing what they’re told. We want a machine that can tell us what to do, instead. That’s AGI. We don’t know how to build such a machine, at least given our current understanding of mathematical logic, theoretical computer science, and human cognition.
These have been listed repeatedly: love, think, understand, contemplate, discover, aspire, lead, philosophize, etc.
these are not tasks except maybe philosophize and discover, which even current models can do... heck google is using old shitty ones to do it...
I said a task, not a feeling, a task is a manipulation of the world to achieve a goal, not something vague and undefinable like love.
We want a machine that can tell us what to do, instead.
theres no such thing, there's no objective right answer to this in the first place, it's not like a conscious being we know of can do this, why would a conscious machine be able to? This is just you asking the impossible, consciousness would not help even the tiniest bit with this problem. you have to say "what to do to achieve x" for it to have meaning, which these machines could do without solving the hard problem of consciousness at all.
yet again you fail to name one valuable aspect of solving consciousness. You keep saying we need the hard problem of consciousness solved for agi but can't name even one way in which it provides a functional improvement to anything.
Economics is descriptive, not prescriptive. The whole concept of “a job” is made up and arbitrary.
You say an AGI would need to do everything a human can. Great, here are some things that humans do: love, think, contemplate, reflect, regret, aspire, etc. these require consciousness.
Also, as you conveniently ignored, philosophy, politics, science are among the most important non-family-oriented “jobs” we humans do. They require consciousness.
Plus, if a machine does what it’s told, then someone would be telling it what to do. That’s a job that a machine cannot do. But most of our jobs are already about telling machines what to do. If an AGI is not self-directed, it can’t tell other machines what to do, unless it is itself told what to do. But then someone is telling it what to do, which is “a job.”
A job is a task one human wants another to accomplish, it is not arbitrary at all.
philosophy, politics, science are among the most important non-family-oriented “jobs” we humans do. They require consciousness.
i don't see why they do, a philosophical zombie could do it, why not an unconscious AI? alphaevolve is already making new science, I see no reason an unconscious being with the abilty to manipulate the world and verify couldn't do these things.
Plus, if a machine does what it’s told, then someone would be telling it what to do. That’s a job that a machine cannot do. But most of our jobs are already about telling machines what to do. If an AGI is not self-directed, it can’t tell other machines what to do, unless it is itself told what to do. But then someone is telling it what to do, which is “a job.”
yes but you can give it large, vague goals like "empower humanity, do what we say and minimize harm." And it will still do them. So what does it matter?
Why do you expect an unthinking, non-deliberative zombie process to know what you mean by “empower humanity”? There are facts about what is GOOD and what is BAD that can only be grasped through subjective experience.
When you tell it to reduce harm, how do you know it won’t undertake a course of eugenics? How do you know it won’t see fit that people like you, by virtue of your stupidity, are culled or sterilized?
Why do you expect an unthinking, non-deliberative zombie process to know what you mean by “empower humanity”? There are facts about what is GOOD and what is BAD that can only be grasped through subjective experience.
these cannot be grasped by subjective experience, and I would say nothing can possibly achieve this, not any human at all, the best we can do is poll humanity and go by approximates, which I believe is best handled by something automatic. humans can't answer these questions in the first place, why should I trust something without subjective experience to do it any worse?
When you tell it to reduce harm, how do you know it won’t undertake a course of eugenics?
because this is unpopular, there are many things online saying not to... do you think humans are immune to this? When has consciousness ever prevented such an outcome?
How do you know it won’t see fit that people like you, by virtue of your stupidity, are culled or sterilized?
we don't, but we also don't with conscious beings, so there's still no stated advantage to consciousness.
Oh my god. So the machine won’t do terrible immoral things because they are unpopular on the internet. Well ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
No, the machine will and so would a conscious one. you misunderstand. This isn't an area where a conscious machine wins.
Tell me, if consciousness prevents this, why did humans do it?