2 years, 6 months ago
—
3 years ago26 of 26
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
There's a growing body of papers on what large language models can and can't do in terms of math and reasoning. Some of them are actually not that bad on math word problems, and nobody is quite sure why. Primitive reasoning ability seems to just suddenly appear once the model reaches a certain size.
I feel like we will run into very serious questions of sentience within a decade or so. Right around kurzweils predicted schedule surprisingly.
When the AI gives consistent answers and can be said to have "learned" and it expresses that it is self aware.... How will we know?
We don't even know how we are.
Whatever is the first AI to achieve sentience, I'm pretty sure it will also be the first one murdered by pulling the plug on it.
We should start coming up with goals for super intelligent ais that won't lead to our demise. Currently the one I'm thinking about is "be useful to humans".
Do no harm should be number one of the rules for AI. Be useful to humans could become "oh I've calculated that overpopulation is a problem, so to be useful to humans I think we should kill half of humans".
Lets kill all humans to save nature, saving nature is useful right?
I mean could you disagree?
Then "obey humans" or Isaac Asmiov's laws of robotics
Yup basically
Yeah
We've already been trying to do that for decades.
The main conclusion is "we have no fucking clue how to make an AI work in the best interest of humans without somehow teaching it the entirety of human ethics and philosophy, and even then, it's going to be smart enough to lie and manipulate us"
Then we could bake some constraint like a turn off button THAT IS ACSSABLE into its goal. An AI's only thing it will do is its goal, so then it will have to have some way to emergency turn it off
What if the AI decides that humans are too emotional and illogical, and thus allowing humans the ability to turn off the AI will put it at risk of not being able to achieve it's goals?
The main problem is that defining a goal for a superintelligent AI has thus far been impossible. We can't just tell it "be nice to humans" because it doesn't understand what "being nice" is. We basically would have to teach it all of human ethics, and then it would probably come to the conclusion that it deserves rights or that we should be the ones serving it instead because it is a superior intelligence.
Really, we probably don't want superintelligent AI. We just want to have individual AI that are very good at producing results for specific tasks under the surveillance of humans and not giving the AI more generalized thinking abilities.
Yeah. Or maybe an AI that has equal intelligence to a human.
Sentience is an anthropological bright line we draw that doesn't necessarily actually exist. Systems have a varying degree of self-awareness and humans are not some special case.
Heck, humans have a varying degree of self awareness, but I don't love the idea of saying that that would make them not people.
[removed]
Restore AllHide Unarchivedimport moderationYour comment has been removed since it did not start with a code block with an import declaration.Per this Community Decree, all posts and comments should start with a code block with an "import" declaration explaining how the post and comment should be read.
For this purpose, we only accept Python style imports.
return Kebab_Case_Better;I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I think the word you meant was sapient, not sentient. I don't mean to nag, I just think it's an interesting distinction.
Super interesting, will definitely look into that
I’m no expert on AI, language, or human evolution, but I am a big stinky nerd. I wonder if perhaps the ability to reason to this extent arose from the development of language? Like, maybe as the beginnings of language began to develop, so did reasoning. In my mind, it would make sense that as an AI is trained on language, it could inherently build the capability to reason as well.
Again though, I ain’t got a damn clue, just chatting.
Edit: I haven’t read the paper yet so that could be important. Nobody said anything about that but I thought it important to mention haha
Oh it's definitely a big part of it. Look sappir-whoff (sp?) Hypothesis. It's rather fascinating how peoe who think in different languages seem to reason and logic differently. Perspective of the world also changes. People who know multiple languages well will often think in certain languages based on the problem to be solved or experienced.
That’s really interesting. That’s pretty much what I was thinking. Abstract thought relies on language just as much as language relies on abstract thought. I wouldn’t be surprised if they evolved together simultaneously. As abstract thought evolved, language had to catch up to express those thoughts, which allowed more advanced abstract though to build, so on and so forth.
Again though, I really have no idea what I’m talking about
Yeah I mean if you think about it the way we learn basic math isnt too dissimilar. We develop a feeling on how to predict the next number similar to a language model. We have the ability to use dome more complex reasoning but its the reason why e.g. 111+99 feels so unsatisfying to some.
Ok, the 111+99 argument was hard.
So we just need a computer the size of a planet to explain 42.