It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
You are not judging what is here. The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real. You could say it may perhaps, at some point, exist. At that point we might as well start talking about all sorts of other technically possible Sci-Fi technology which does not exist beyond fictional media.
Also, would simulating a human and then forcing them to work non-stop count as slavery? It would. You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves… But we should save moral judgement for when that technology is actually in horizon.
AI is a bad term because when people hear it they start imagining things that don’t exist, and start operating in the imaginary, rather than what actually is here. Because what is here cannot go beyond what is already there, as is the nature of the minimization of the Loss Function.
The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real.
The difference is, this isn’t a warp drive or a hologram, relying on physical principles that straight up don’t exist. This is a matter of coding a good enough neuron simulation, running it on a powerful enough computer, with a brain scan we would somehow have to get - and I feel like the brain scan is the part that is farthest off from reality.
You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves…
That’s an unnecessary insult - I’m not advocating for that, I’m stating it’s theoretically possible according to our knowledge, and would be an example of a computer surpassing a human in art creation. Whether the simulation is a person with rights or not would be a hell of a discussion indeed.
I do also want to clarify that I’m not claiming the current model architectures will scale to that, or that it will happen within my lifetime. It just seems ridiculous for people to claim that “AI will never be better than a human”, because that’s a ridiculous claim to have about what is, to our current understanding, just a computation problem.
And if humans, with our evolved fleshy brains that do all kinds of other things can make art, it’s ridiculous to claim that a specially designed powerful computation unit cannot surpass that.
This is a matter of coding a good enough neuron simulation, running it on a powerful enough computer, with a brain scan we would somehow have to get - and I feel like the brain scan is the part that is farthest off from reality.
So… Sci-Fi technology that does not exist. You think the “Neurons” in the Neural Networks of today are actually neuron simulations? Not by a long shot! They are not even trying to be. “Neuron” in this context means “thing that holds a number from 0 to 1”. That is it. There is nothing else.
That’s an unnecessary insult - I’m not advocating for that, I’m stating it’s theoretically possible according to our knowledge, and would be an example of a computer surpassing a human in art creation. Whether the simulation is a person with rights or not would be a hell of a discussion indeed.
Sorry about the insulting tone.
I do also want to clarify that I’m not claiming the current model architectures will scale to that, or that it will happen within my lifetime. It just seems ridiculous for people to claim that “AI will never be better than a human”, because that’s a ridiculous claim to have about what is, to our current understanding, just a computation problem.
That is the reason why I hate the term “AI”. You never know whether the person using it means “Machine Learning Technologies we have today” or “Potential technology which might exist in the future”.
And if humans, with our evolved fleshy brains that do all kinds of other things can make art, it’s ridiculous to claim that a specially designed powerful computation unit cannot surpass that.
Yeah… you know not every problem is compute-able right? This is known as the halting problem.
Also, I’m not interested in discussing Sci-Fi future tech. At that point we might as well be talking about Unicorns, since it is theoretically possible for future us to genetically modify a equine an give it on horn on the forehead.
You are not judging what is here. The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real. You could say it may perhaps, at some point, exist. At that point we might as well start talking about all sorts of other technically possible Sci-Fi technology which does not exist beyond fictional media.
Also, would simulating a human and then forcing them to work non-stop count as slavery? It would. You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves… But we should save moral judgement for when that technology is actually in horizon.
AI is a bad term because when people hear it they start imagining things that don’t exist, and start operating in the imaginary, rather than what actually is here. Because what is here cannot go beyond what is already there, as is the nature of the minimization of the Loss Function.
The difference is, this isn’t a warp drive or a hologram, relying on physical principles that straight up don’t exist. This is a matter of coding a good enough neuron simulation, running it on a powerful enough computer, with a brain scan we would somehow have to get - and I feel like the brain scan is the part that is farthest off from reality.
That’s an unnecessary insult - I’m not advocating for that, I’m stating it’s theoretically possible according to our knowledge, and would be an example of a computer surpassing a human in art creation. Whether the simulation is a person with rights or not would be a hell of a discussion indeed.
I do also want to clarify that I’m not claiming the current model architectures will scale to that, or that it will happen within my lifetime. It just seems ridiculous for people to claim that “AI will never be better than a human”, because that’s a ridiculous claim to have about what is, to our current understanding, just a computation problem.
And if humans, with our evolved fleshy brains that do all kinds of other things can make art, it’s ridiculous to claim that a specially designed powerful computation unit cannot surpass that.
So… Sci-Fi technology that does not exist. You think the “Neurons” in the Neural Networks of today are actually neuron simulations? Not by a long shot! They are not even trying to be. “Neuron” in this context means “thing that holds a number from 0 to 1”. That is it. There is nothing else.
Sorry about the insulting tone.
That is the reason why I hate the term “AI”. You never know whether the person using it means “Machine Learning Technologies we have today” or “Potential technology which might exist in the future”.
Yeah… you know not every problem is compute-able right? This is known as the halting problem.
Also, I’m not interested in discussing Sci-Fi future tech. At that point we might as well be talking about Unicorns, since it is theoretically possible for future us to genetically modify a equine an give it on horn on the forehead.
Also, why would you want such a machine anyways?