StopTech @ StopTech @lemmy.today

Posts

230

Comments

228

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

We don't have a mathematical definition for intelligence or artificial like we do for a Turing machine, but most useful concepts don't have precise definitions, like human, air, porn, drugs, medicine. I don't see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence. A lot of robots in sci-fi aren't superintelligent and they usually have robotic voices and vocabulary choices and sometimes difficulty understanding words that aren't in the dictionary or answering slightly vague questions, things which LLMs have no trouble with.

Saying the mount Rushmore carvings was formed by erosion is a simple explanation with few assumptions that is possible if you assume erosion happens sufficiently randomly, but it's an absurd explanation nonetheless. Occam's razor is just a rule of thumb to apply to competing explanations which are similarly reasonable and even then it's not telling you which is more likely to be true but which is the simplest model to work with.

Normal computer programs only look intelligent in very narrow areas, like number crunching, which is why we don't tend to call them intelligent. Their general intelligence is next to zero. Even if we were delusional enough to think life came from non-life and developed intelligence by random chance and natural selection, you have the same thing there where you get much more non-intelligent output than intelligent output. Monkeys on typewriters could also look intelligent some of the time, but looking at the totality of output they wouldn't.

It’s just an expression of plain old human intelligence

All artificial things are expressions of human behaviors. That's kind of the definition of artificial.

Intelligence is a description of capability, not the means by which the capability is achieved. So if the output looks intelligent then the process is intelligent regardless of how it works. The difference between natural and artificial intelligence is how the intelligence is achieved - what you're describing doesn't match any intelligence found in nature so if it produces intelligent output then it's artificially intelligent.

Statistically likely to...what? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I don't think that fixed things in the French or Russian revolutions, it actually made things worse. Kill the billionaires and new ones will take their place. Before you destroy the old system you need a new one that is better and additionally prevents the old system coming back.

People rarely think through the consequences of what they wish for until it starts to come true. People are now realizing that they didn't actually want everything to be automated because it means they will lose their power and have no impact on the world. One option is to ignore this new knowledge we are waking up to and "accept our brave new world" where humans are powerless and have no purpose other than to serve machines. The other is to fix our mistakes, abolish the technology and go back to the old ways of living which our ancestors were much happier under.

Welcome to the resistance

There are sources in the video description

I was never into community, nature or human interaction but even an emotionless former technophile introvert like me or Ted Kaczynski can see how bad technology has made things and how much worse it's going to get and realize actually community, nature and human interaction are more important than so-called progress, efficiency, comfort, material goods or really anything else. I think anyone can see this but depending on predispositions it may take more or less life experience and study.

You misunderstood. Because human nature is as it is, any way you try to manage it many technologies will be used for bad far more than they are used for good. And even people attempting to use technology for good usually end up causing more bad than good because those technologies have unintended consequences. Usually because they are unnatural and take us away from our natural environment and behaviors that we are finely tuned for.

Things were a lot better 100 or 200 years ago. People were happier even if they had less by materialistic measures. I really don't care about modern materials, medicine or climate investigation. I just want to be left alone and live the way I was designed to live, not in some sterilized padded room where all my material needs are met and I never get sick. Diseases, injuries and hunger are part of life and I'd much rather get sick and die living freely in the forest than live as a comfy pet.

I try to limit technology use but unfortunately the internet is the most effective way to reach people. It's like firefighters going into a building so they can pull people out.

You're not overreacting. Projects enabling AI and ushering in the demise of humanity deserve to die. There's still hope that people will rise up against the machines, but the window of opportunity is closing.

Some things by nature cause more harm than good. Like nuclear weapons and AI. It doesn't matter if they have some beneficial uses when any use also has some negative consequences and it's far more tempting for people to misuse them.

Technology beyond what we can make with our hands from readily available materials is unnatural. That's why it tends to be far more bad than good and take away our humanity. Humans are finely tuned to live in the natural world, not the technological world. Ignoring that has had devastating consequences and it will only get worse.

The Amish were right

Big difference between organizing a community online and being part of it in real life. Real life communities are the only real communities.

Firefighters have to go into the burning building to get people out

Yes, we have had AutoGPT for 3 years now

Consciousness is separate from intelligence and I never brought it up.

10 years is not a long time.