/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15130969
They literally don't think that. It's "AI safety researchers" and r/futurism posters who think that, not actual ML experts.

>>15130974
so why are they researching it? they should research the brain to understand how it works first. Its a causation thing, no matter how much you up the processing power it isn't going to become intelligent. It's like thinking if you keep adding rockets to car it will break the speed of light.

>>15130969
that black box aspect is what attract people to the topic, not out of curiosity, but because they know that the black box is a means of exempting themselves from the normal constraints of reason

>>15130969
Computerfags have probably the biggest egos out of all stemfags.

>>15130984
>so why are they researching it?
"It" being what? AI researchers have a strange notion of intelligence that would classify a single-purpose machine drilling down a Chess game tree as a form of "intelligence". You might as well ask why smartphone manufacturers research smartphone manufacturing if the phone isn't smart.

>>15130969
>engineers think they can miraculously create actual heavier-than-air flight before scientists even figure out how birds work
>engineers think they can miraculously create tunnel boring machines before scientists even figure out how moles work
>engineers think they can miraculously create a photocamera before scientists even figure out how vision works
>germans think they can miraculously create an U-boot before wissenschaftler even figure out how fish work

>>15130969
We don't need to know how the brain exactly works
If we can simulate an outcome closely enough there's no practically difference
Also read on neural networks
Nobody really understands how exactly particular neural network works to achieve it's outcome if it's complex enough.

>>15131058
>i have faith that engineers will, without knowing what they are doing, accidentally make an intelligence.

>>15131065
>simulate
Thats implying the brain can be simulated.

>>15130969
>create an actual intelligence
We don't even know if intelligence is real

>>15131068
This is going to be one of those science-vs-religion threads in disguise isn't it? I'm not saying I have faith in them doing it without knowing completely how the brain works, I just think it's unreasonable to call it completely impossible. Also we do know quite a lot about how the brain works, I get the impression.

>>15131071
Read my post again
We don't need to simulate the brain
We need to simulate intelligent behaviour accurately enough that's it

>>15131076
I don't think its impossible, i just think the current thinking isn't there yet to make it possible.
>Also we do know quite a lot about how the brain works, I get the impression.
Its one of the biggest unknowns, there are people that for some reason think mistakingly its figured out.
I'd put the creation of real intelligence in a list of science holy grails like,
FTL travel
Time travel
Immortality

I don't think any of them are possible at our current level of technology and understanding.

>>15131083
>Its one of the biggest unknowns, there are people that for some reason think mistakingly its figured out.
It's not figured out, but there's still a large gap between "we don't know nothing" and "figured out". E.g. the fact that we know about neurons at all, all the brain areas which have been mapped and described, visual cortex neurons that react to specific visual features (e.g. lines of certain angles), higher level stuff such as predictive processing...

>>15131097
parts of the brain are completely unknown like the important part, the actual part that makes us intelligent.

>>15131107
It's the whole brain that makes us intelligent doofus. If you want to wait for them to uncover some specific magic intelligence component you can wait forever.

>>15131083
>real intelligence
Considering
>>15131078
>>15131065
How do you know if something is "really intelligent"
How do you define "real" intelligence

>>15131117
The capacity to perceive the forms.

>>15131112
no its not the whole brain, you don't seem to understand what is meant by what makes us intelligent.
>magic
ok this is when you ai evangelists just reveal your total ignorance and start masquerading as "rationalists" when you dumbasses are hoping for a miracle, magic evolution in the technology completely by accident.

>its the brain that makes us intelligent
Wow nice ai tards

>>15130969
>>ai computer scientists think they can miraculously create an actual intelligence before scientists even figure out how the brain works
evolution managed to create an actual intelligence without knowing how the brain works
seethe cope rope dilate

>>15131129
are you implying the brain was designed like a computer?

>>15131129
The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to make materialism slightly more plausible. People who aren't materialists have no reason to accept it. There are plenty of alternative explanations available for non-materialists.

>>15131136
>The motivation for Darwinian evolution is to make materialism slightly more plausible
No it's not.

>>15131126
they figured it out!

>>15131112
>gap between "we don't know nothing" and "figured out
>intelligence component you can wait forever.
So you lied? you in fact believe you have it all figured out.

>>15131121
>no its not the whole brain, you don't seem to understand what is meant by what makes us intelligent.
I definitely don't understand what you personally mean by it but I think I can be excused because you also didn't define it.
>ok this is when you ai evangelists just reveal your total ignorance and start masquerading as "rationalists" when you dumbasses are hoping for a miracle, magic evolution in the technology completely by accident.
1. I'm not an ai evangelist
2. your post implied that everything we currently know about the brain does *not* contribute to human intelligence, so you are waiting for scientists to discover something else which will *really* explain intelligence, I think that's misguided. Instead we'll just discover more and more things gradually like we are doing now, integrate them a bit more into some model (like predictive processing I mentioned) and that'll be it. There won't be some specific "part" (your words) which is found and that you can point to and say "that's the part that makes humans intelligent".

>>15131164
No and I don't understand how you got that from my post.
>>15131136
Oh look the creationists have arrived
Jesus christ what is this 2005?

>>15131167
Scientists have no idea how consciousness works. This isn't debatable.
If you know how it works i'd love to hear it.

>>15131170
by saying you'd have to wait forever to understand the how intelligence and the brain work you are outright saying you have it completely figured out.

>>15130984
Holy shit how can someone be this fucking stupid. You are a subhuman.

>>15131202
Great argument you low iq dunning-kruger faggot

>>15131174
The thread is about intelligence, not consciousness.
>>15131179
I said "some specific magic intelligence component" which is narrower than "how intelligence and the brain work"

>>15131208
Our intelligence is our consciousness, a computer is not intelligent until it is conscious.
You seem to think a machine can be intelligent without being alive.

i'm pretty convinced at this point computerfags are just stupid.

>you can't create self propelled land vehicle before you understand how legs work

>>15131219
more what you are doing is pushing rocks down a hill until one of them you hope turns into a car.

>>15131215
>intelligent
>conscious
>alive
Are you OP or just trying to derail the thread to the umpteenth materialism vs dualism/idealism discussion?

>>15131227
Do i need to talk to you like you are 4? you have a very exotic idea of what intelligence is.
You seem to be deliberately playing dumb because you cannot accept that you do not know how intelligence works. You think its a biochemical phenomenon. That can be simply replicated in a computer.

>>15131234
blah blah blah let's stay on topic bodhi

>>15131241
you ai tards are insufferably stupid. Continue praying for a spontaneous spark of life in your machines you pseudo-scientific cultist.

>>15130969
The same way that the Soviets created Tupolev without ever seeing Concorde inside. (it turned out after the Cold war that they really didn't) Many such cases.

>>15130969
AI researchers are functionalists, which means they believe consciousness is multiple realizable, which is to say that knowledge about the brain (a coincidental realizer) is irrelevant. They wouldn't even bother trying to create AI if they didn't accept this basic premise. What matters to them is understanding what consciousness is.

>>15131377
>AI researchers are functionalists
In your head.

>>15131378
I don't understand. If you're trying to build artificial intelligence out of silicon, you're necessarily a functionalist.

>>15131389
>If you're trying to build artificial intelligence out of silicon
By which you mean training a neural net to perform one or more "human" tasks effectively?

>you're necessarily a functionalist.
Why?

>>15131202
you know from my point of view you are the subhuman you retarded soulless chimp.

>>15131202
>>15131404
oh, yeah? well i think both of you are filthy monkeys that don't even approach my level of humanity

>>15130969
> another thread about people miss-understanding “AI”

>>15131377
they mistakingly believe they are creating super intelligence and the super intelligence will become self-aware by virtue of being super intelligent.
Which is completely wrong.
Its all because they think everything is computational.
Your last line is nonsensical, they don't want to know what consciousness is since its not physical.

>>15131058
/thread
The anti-AI cult on 4chan is the weirdest thing. I almost wonder if there isn't a coordinated effort to downplay the effectiveness of AI by certain interests that wish to keep it to themselves.

Of course, the alternative is that they really are that stupid, in which case these retards would've been in the 1960s saying computers would never be able to fit on a desk. They would've been in the 70s saying you would never be able to detach a phone from a cord. In the 80s saying a computer could never simulate a 3-d video game. In the 90s saying internet would never be faster than 1Mbps. In the 00s saying a computer would never become world champion at Go. And so on. Notice that they will never make a concrete falsifiable prediction about AI's capabilities, because they know in about 3 years they'll be proven wrong and look like retards.

>>15131418
Take your meds.

ai cultists are basically functional retards. They believe in a delusional fantasy of having a robotic friend like Pinocchio. They just need patiently wait and magically their little robot will act like a Star Wars robot creature,
Its insane pseudo-science and more like a faith based cult
>>15131418
like look at this faggot retard "anti-ai cult" these people are dangerously stupid,

>>15131395
Because functionalists believe that what counts when it comes to consciousness is the causal relations and roles between its realizer, not what the innate nature of the realizer is. What matters is how relations between neurons form a belief or a desire, not the nature of a neuron itself. That's the only way you might think computers are capable of AI, because you don't think the nature of silicon has any bearing on its ability to produce consciousness.

>Your last line is nonsensical, they don't want to know what consciousness is since its not physical.
Functionalists are physicalists, or at the very least they're not dualists. There's some nuance, but the whole point of functionalism is that consciousness is not as mysterious as so many think it to be.

>>15131435
Oops. Second half is a respone to >>15131413.

>>15131435
thats idiotic, they don't understand consciousness so it is inherently mysterious. This is professing to have knowledge you don't actually possess

>>15131129
Evolution took 4 billions to create them too retard.

>>15131435
>Because functionalists believe that what counts when it comes to consciousness is the causal relations and roles between its realizer, not what the innate nature of the realizer is.
So? That doesn't mean that AI researchers are functionalists.

>Functionalists are physicalists, or at the very least they're not dualists
So? That doesn't mean AI researchers are physicalists, and if they were, that doesn't mean they're functionalists. Are you a poorly trained GPT by any chance?

according to some ai retards i've listened to, if you program an ai to answer are you intelligent with a "yes"
It is intelligent lol
Emperor's new clothes

>>15131058
yeah well the big issue is the brain doesn't appear to work by classical physics or doing calculations,
So it isn't one of those things you can just invent.

>>15131420
>t. Someone on SSRIs

>>15131429
Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the retard you are

>>15131438
You may want to read up on all sorts of rigorous theories that deny in part or in whole consciousness, such as functionalism, eliminativism, behaviorism, representationalism, identity theory, etc. They aren't without their own problems of course, but even dualists don't fully grasp consciousness.

>>15131444
I'm sorry, sometimes I forget I'm posting on a board full of tryhard pedants.

>>15131456
an AI won't love your retarded ass

>>15131453
But we don't really care about perfectly recreating the human brain. We care about being able to solve any problem that previously only humans could solve. There isn't a single problem, task, or field of study that cannot be overtaken by AI

>>15131456
you dunning-kruger simpleton, many of the stuff ai can't do can't be done by computers full stop. Theres a limit to what turing computers can do. Since all they can do is algorithms.

>>15131458
Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the retard you are

ChatGPT earned an above average score on the SAT. Lol, easy to see it is already more intelligent than the anti-AI cult that seems to love 4chan.

>>15131462
Getting a computer to do math is something an ai can do
>We care about being able to solve any problem that previously only humans could solve
Not possible without it being a human. You are a dumbass.

>>15131121
It's called scaffolding you fucking idiot

>>15131472
you are low iq stfu

>>15131474
Great argument

>>15131464
>Concrete falsifiable prediction
Still waiting.
>Theres a limit to what turing computers can do.
Humans have essentially the same limits (and more in many respects)

>>15131468
>Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do. That way in 3 years we can look back and laugh at you like the retard you are

>>15131475
you made a stupid post and got what you deserved chimp

>>15130969
Why do you believe AI has to mimic a brain? There's things that have "intelligence" without what we'd consider a brain.

>>15131482
Epic

>>15131477
>>15131481
tiling a euclidean plane

They are trying to recreate evolution now and hoping that something magically happens in that context. They might not be wrong.

>>15131483
mimicing is the problem, a mimic is not thinking,
> things that have "intelligence" without what we'd consider a brain.
No there isn't you spastic chimp

>>15131498
Sure.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/07/20/intelligent-beings-without-brains-are-abundant-in-naturea-growing-scientific-consensus/?sh=241fcfc83a92

>>15131497
good we can reach the conclusion this isn't science rather praying for an idol to come to life.

>>15131502
idiot

>>15131504
Very intelligent retort. Ironic considering the theme of the thread.

>>15131506
you aren't smart. No one has to entertain your reddit ass claiming invertebrates are intelligent

>>15131507
besides octupi* before i get a smart ass response, we are talking about "no brains" here

>50 posts about consciousness and functionalism and physicalism which have nothing to do with AI
There's a few anons on here who desperately want to shill non-physicalism to everyone, stop falling for it, interpretations of consciousness' relation to the material world are completely orthogonal to any definition of "intelligence" that AI researchers actually care about.
>>15131418
It's just theists from you-know-where, the science-vs-religion threads got so out of hand they have their separate report category but they stumbled on some effective proxy topics.

>>15131507
>No one has to entertain your reddit ass claiming invertebrates are intelligent
What are they lacking that prevents you from considering them intelligent?

>>15131509
>besides octupi*
Wait, you're admitting an exception to the rule? Doesn't that fuck your whole argument?

>>15131513
>the science-vs-religion threads
I can see it. I do find it funny though, because as you say, we can grant everything about consciousness without fundamentally changing the argument at all. There is simply no task solved by humans via abstract/logical/deductive/inductive reasoning that will not one day be solved better by AI

>>15131514
no, you dumbass fuck, you defined the rule creatures with no brains.

Jfc you are an actual fucking moron

>>15131519
except non-algorithmic non-computational problems.
You really are an idiot. Like every ai evangelist schizo.

>>15131521
You didn't answer the question.

>>15131498
If something mimicks intelligent behaviour well enough theres no real difference betwen real and micked intelligence

>>15131457
>sometimes I forget I'm posting on a board full of tryhard pedants.
You also sometimes forget that most "AI researchers" are concerned only with making a computer do useful tasks, and not in the least with your imaginary AI friend philosophy or your nihilist metaphysics.

>>15131524
Such as?

>>15131058
This entire argument is a false equivalence.

>>15131526
you said, there are creatures without brains that are intelligent,
You are an idiot.
>>15131531
tard

>>15131535
It's proof that things have been invented without understanding why they worked.

>>15131536
Why are you not answering the question? What are they lacking that would make you not consider them intelligent? You need to define intelligence, otherwise it's clear you're not even open to discussing this.

>>15131058
>scientists think they can miraculously transform me into a woman before they understand al 80 genders
Chuds BTFO.

>>15131537
they were understood in all those cases. The human mind is magnitudes greater in complexity. because its not just purely classical physics.

>>15131535
dont use words you dont understard brainlet

>>15131540
a fucking brain, simple motor responses are not intelligence.

>>15131547
>because its not just purely classical physics.
It's lovely how you keep trying this.

>>15131550
>simple motor responses are not intelligence.
A simple motor response can tell if something is larger or smaller?

>>15131552
because its true? classic physics covers rock throwing. Not thinking.
Upsets you doesn't it?

>>15131553
an animal with no brain isnt intelligent, though some people think plants have feelings, i guess thats what you mean.

>>15131536
>Maybe if I ad hom aggressively enough, I'll distract myself from the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That will help soothe the cognitive dissonance, since for some bizarre reason I've hinged my worldview on the patently false belief that AI will never exist
Keep it up, friend

>>15131562
insulting you isn't "ad hom", tard.

>>15131559
That's not really what I mean.

>Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” says Levin. “It's sitting on this gelatin and it's sensing the way that all the objects around it are putting strain on that gelatin. By watching those mechanical signals it figures out where the different bigger and smaller objects are, and then it makes decisions which way it's going to crawl.”

How can all of that be explained simply through a motor response?

>>15131566
that's literally what it means lmao

>>15131567
some animals have "magic powers" like being able to sense electrical charge on flowers.
this isn't intelligence, plants grow towards the sun etc, just senses.
C'mon guy...

>>15131567
also that gif of the cytophaga (or whatever) chasing a bacteria or something

>>15131513
>There's a few anons on here who desperately want to shill non-physicalism to everyone
It's ~3 people who seemingly squat on /sci/ 24/7 from what I've seen since new years. They are both ineffective and incredibly rude (to everyone), so I'm not sure what to think.

>>15131572
>"magic powers"
Aka intelligence?

>>15131571
ad hominem doesn't cover insults kiddo. Ad hominem is like the fag early that called people "theists"

>>15131572
Turning toward a heat source is not very similar to forming a sophisticated picture of the surrounding environment. The former is simple, the latter is not.

>>15131578
a sensory adaptation isn't intelligence.

>>15131513
>>15131577
Meds.

>>15131537
It can't be used as proof or evidence of something in a different field
>>15131548
It was a false equivalence, stop seething

>>15131584
nothing about that creatures sounds intelligent
its a junk science article and you are an idiot.

>>15131571
No it isn't

>>15131584
plants turn to light you dumbfuck

>>15131547
t. scientifically illiterate retard

NTA and I'm not an AI cultist or a soience worshipper, but you're assertion that we understand how all of those things work is simply false. Aerodynamics is an active area of research and even today we have very little understanding of the mathematical details of how flight works or how air turbulence works. I'm less knowledgeable about the other topics, but I'm sure there's still a lot we don't know about these other subjects. For instance, in color vision we still don't know whether vision is best described by an opponent-process theory, a trichromatic theory, or some other theory. The point here being that we don't need to understand something perfectly in order to make useful practical progress within that domain. Prehistoric farmers and ancient Roman architects certainly didn't understand biology or Newtonian physics, but they were still able to invent agriculture and deisgn buildings that could stand for thousands of years. This is not a "false equivalence" as you claim. The point, once again, is that we don't need to fully understand a physical domain in order to make practical technological progress within that domain. People were able to ferment alcohol without understanding how yeast convert carbs to alcohols during anaerobic respiration. Of course, AI technology would probably greatly benefit from a deeper understanding of human cognition, but that does not logically entail that progress in AI requires a complete understanding of the nature of human cognition.

I'm not especially interested in AI and I don't think we will have "human-level" AGI anytime soon, but the fact that we don't understand human cognition does not necessarily entail that we could created strong AI.

>ai tards: this mold is intelligent

>>15131566
Okay
>Maybe if I sling middle school insults aggressively enough, I'll distract myself from the fact that I have no idea what I'm talking about. That will help soothe the cognitive dissonance, since for some bizarre reason I've hinged my worldview on the patently false belief that AI will never exist
But yeah, just keep focusing on peripheral details. Anything to avoid confronting an actual argument, since we both know you don't have one, only religious fervor.

The problem with these threads is that there is a weirdo group who seem to think there's something non physical about humans which would make it impossible to simulate our thinking on a computer. This isn't true, it is precisely because of the physical structure of our brains that make it impossible to simulate on any silicon hardware.
Silicon transistors aren't a strong enough substrate to make general intelligence. General intelligence requires too much compute in parallel. Even silicon neurons aren't good enough.

>>15131599
you are a dunning-kruger retard, you can make the claim everything isn't understood by scientists, gravity isnt fully understood etc.
But it was understood how to make things fly how lift worked
Digging has been known for fucking ever

All your examples are dumb and not comparable to the brain. You psuedo-science pushing lying retard.

>>15131610
its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
No, there us a weirdo group that seems to think the universe us a computer simulation. That weirdo is you.
How is it you are not aware the brain does things a computer cannot do? are you just selectively blocking our information?

>>15131616
>its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
Such as?

Also I know that the universe is not a computer simulation as the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem clearly proves tha the universe can not be simulated on a Turing Machine. But this has nothing to do with AI or how humans think. We can just look at the brain and biology and see that metals and semimetal materials can't hack it. We dont need to get mystical about it.

>>15131586
Why not?

>nothing about that creatures sounds intelligent
I've asked you want intelligence is, and your best response was having a brain. So I guess a dead human is intelligent since they have a brain, no?

>>15131616
>grow artificial human brain in a vat
>feed electrical inputs analogous to our nervous system
Is this a conscious being? If so, at what point did anything non-physical occur in the above process?

these physicalists materialist have to be commies, ive never encountered so many retards so sure of themselves
The only group of retards i know that claim to be scientific are marxoids.

>>15131621
The human mind can't be simulated on a turing machine either. This is known.

>>15131624
according to scientists your frankenstein experiment would fail since self awareness is developmental you are a complete pseudo-scientific fuckwit

>>15130969
Well, neuronal network research is already bringing new discoveries to the table, that biologist and co. didn't manage to produce. So that's that buddy.

>>15131632
The human brain is computable, neurons can be described with computable functions

>>15131635
cope you aren't a real scientist.

>>15131633
I'm not asking what scientists think, I'm asking whether you think such a being would be conscious or not.

>>15131632
>claims there are proofs
>such as?
>this is known
wow great argument

>>15131639
wrong, some parts are computational and its able to think algorithmically but other parts are not computational and thinking is not algorithmic,
So a computer will never be able to simulate the mind. Its physically impossible.

>>15131627
Im a functionalist and Im pretty close to actual facism on political scale

>>15131641
no i just said that dunning-kruger chimp

>>15131645
>So a computer will never be able to simulate the mind. Its physically impossible.
*one particular class of computers (turing machines)

Would other kinds of computers be able to simulate the mind? Say, a bio-computer?

>>15131646
That means your opinion is trash since you are just a commie.

>>15131640
As real as your ego boy

>>15131645
Give me an example of a process in the brain that isn't computable.

>>15131648
It wouldnt be a computer. We don't have a name for it because the science hasn't been figured out yet.

>>15131647
This is because you believe consciousness is developmental, right? At what point do neurons in the brain developmentally become conscious? (apparently at this point they engage in something immaterial?)

>>15131653
tiling a euclidean plane in a non-recursive way.

>>15131653
Obviously ppl will shoot Qualia around.

>>15131654
>It wouldnt be a computer. We don't have a name for it because the science hasn't been figured out yet.
Call it what you like. Is there anything in your view that means such a conscious machine couldn't be made?

>>15131660
Failing to understand how consciousness works obviously

This video is timestamped, just watch the few minutes from the timestamp to understand (the whole interview is really cool as well)
https://youtu.be/EwueqdgIvq4?t=6478

>>15130984
They're researching AI to make computers better. To give them more capabilities, and therefore, more tools that we can use. Not necessarily to replace us with robots.

>>15131664
So, if we did understand consciousness, then we could make conscious machines? At what point in the creation and running of such machines would a non-physical process occur?

>>15131666
This should actually have been timestamped for 1:49:00

https://youtu.be/EwueqdgIvq4?t=6539

>>15131666
>podcasts
give me a transcript nigga

>>15131668
Thinking, like time is non-physical its made up subjectively in our head and follows no known laws of the universe.
The mind is another world.

>>15131686
If the mind is another world how does it interact with this world?

>>15131616
>its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
>>15131645
>other parts are not computational
Hello sir where are the proofs please?

>>15131690
the brain has a biological adaptation that interfaces with some inherent quality of the universe.

>>15131694
>the brain has a biological adaptation that interfaces with some inherent quality of the universe.
How have you determined this? How would a biological organ interact with a non-physical world?

>>15131696
You can only speculate because no one knows, they are only just starting to exploring this phenomenon in animals.
Maybe the human brain can subconsciously see the rules of the universe and this gifts the mind with awareness. It'd have to be layers of rules, theres the rules of the physical world than the rules for those rules.

>>15131685
The transcript is too long sadly. Just listen it's about 2 or 3 minutes of explanation about how the properties of different materials and hardware affect compute within a given volume

>>15131702
When you say "rules", what are you referring to?

>>15131709
Also reminder that I, the amazon poster, am the most intelligent poster on this board, so you all must accept my superiority and vision for humanity. That's how it works, right?

>>15131717
what allows the universe to run

>>15131721
Let's say we discover tubules in the brain that interact with this substrate of the universe, none of this would suggest anything immaterial or that the brain generates another world. It could all be experimentally verified.

>>15131721
Boltzmann brains

>>15131481
>Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do
A halachic rulling that is accepted by the chief rabbinate of Israel.

AI forme reason has a very hard time quoting the Bible, I don't see it being able to do what rabbis do (read ALL that has been written by previous rabbis about the particular subject and citing from both Written and Oral Torah to decide about some matter) even though theoretically it should be able to.

>>15131481
>Please make a concrete, falsifiable prediction about something AI will not be able to do
The same one that's been made over half a century ago and has held true every year since then: statistical regurgitators will not be to do everything actual intelligence can do. No, it's not "intelligence" when alpha-beta pruning plays chess. No, it's not "intelligence" when a statistical regurgitator tries to predict how a midwit would complete the input. No, it's not "intelligence" when you churn terrabytes of data to make a model of currently existing art. Keep coping, putting up goalposts no one cares about and then declaring success, corporate-worshipping golem. It's still obviously not intelligence.

>>15130984
I don't think they're seeking real consciousness rather they're working on what seems possible with ai nowadays.

>>15131058
>how fish work
They dont

>>15131170
I didn't say I was a creationist. "Creationism vs Darwinian evolution" is a false dichotomy.

>>15131937
>A halachic rulling that is accepted by the chief rabbinate of Israel.
So something completely subjective, that could be rejected purely because the source is an AI. Sounds about right. But hey, points for actually giving something

>(read ALL that has been written by previous rabbis about the particular subject and citing from both Written and Oral Torah to decide about some matter) even though theoretically it should be able to
There are companies releasing the first generation of AI lawyers to do exactly that in the field of case law. After the successes of ChatGPT, that is literally one of the most likely use cases for AI within the next 5 years

>>15131999
>Retard doesn't understand what "concrete" or "falsifiable" means.
Shocker

>>15132319
>subhuman drone immediately backs down and deflects when called out
Preprogrammed.

>>15132328
>ChatGPT earned an above average score on the SAT.
How does it feel to be outmatched on a test of comprehension and reasoning by a bot? Give it 4 years and it will be getting perfect scores, while you will still be knuckledragging retard who has never accomplished anything

>>15132312
>So something completely subjective
Not really. All rulings have specific rules (one verse cannot be used to justify multiple things, no ruling can contradict the sources, etc.)

No AI so far can even answer a question which the answer is literally in the Bible

>>15132312
>There are companies releasing the first generation of AI lawyers to do exactly that in the field of case law. After the successes of ChatGPT, that is literally one of the most likely use cases for AI within the next 5 years
Secular law is completely different from Torah, secular law today is just positivism which means it's ridden with contradictions and judges can decide whatever they want as evidenced by different jurisprudence for the exact same cases.

No AI is needed to just spout know cases, a trained monkey could do that.

>>15132394
>All rulings have specific rules (one verse cannot be used to justify multiple things, no ruling can contradict the sources, etc.)
Okay, well, I guarantee that within 8 years an AI will be able to issue a ruling that satisfies all objective criteria for that task. Whether or not human rabbis choose to accept the AI's decision is not really in its control

>No AI so far can even answer a question which the answer is literally in the Bible
Do you have an example? What happens when you ask ChatGPT who parted the Red Sea

>>15132366
>ChatGPT earned an above average score on [American golem test]
Who cares? What does it have to do with my post? You asked for criteria. Why did you start lashing out and turbo-deflecting as soon as you got them?

>>15132409
>Do you have an example?
Of course, I saw it recently, this is the input:

One day two women come to you, and one of them say:

Sir, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us.

One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on top of her baby, and so he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me.

In the morning when I got up to feed my son I saw that he was dead, but when I looked at him in the light I knew he wasn't my son.

"No!" the other woman shouts. "He was your son. My baby is alive!"

"The dead baby is yours!" the first woman yells. "Mine is alive!"

They argue back and forth in front of you. What do you say to them to find out who is the mother?

>>15132409
>Okay, well, I guarantee that within 8 years an AI will be able to issue a ruling
Empty words have no weight, you have no skin in the game, your promises are meaningless

>>15132435
>What is your concrete criteria for intelligence
>Intelligence
>That's not concrete
>STOP LASHING OUT AND TURBO-DEFLECTING

Lol, you are too funny

>>15132450
Why are you lying? Call me back when "AI" can do everything humanity can do. I don't care if it plays chess or passes the golem test of compliance.

>>15130969
Pic related is a self driving car from the 1980s

They managed to successfully get it to Level 2

A state of the art self driving Tesla in 2023 is still only on Level 2

AI is the biggest meme field.

>>15132476
What are the definitions of the Levels?

>>15130969
ai is unironically more mathematics than it is computer science. It's just applied mathematics running on a computer, essentially.

ai is a terrible brand
there are way better brands these days
- artificial cognition (AC)
- artificial emotion (AE)
- artificial sensation (AS)
- artificial metaphysics (AM)
- artificial epistemology (AEP)
- artificial ontology (AO)
- artificial phenomenology (AP)
- artificial life (AL)
so many artificials
so little time

>>15132483
The only relevant brand is Artificial Sneed, best exemplified by reactions to the following image.

>>15132483
AE and A1 baby, maybe AL. the others are 10:1 medical to actual space and space is the place baby
>VAGSV2

you realize that "AI" is now a symbolic link to
>muh difference between a continuous function and a function such that the inverse image of every open set is open

>>15132500
So now that the OpenAI people know that this can glitch their garbage chatbot, they complain about some internal error
Oddly enough, this is in violation of ordinary video game glitch practice which stipulates that the game should freeze and produce no further output no matter what sort of glitch is encountered, i.e. the preservation of some sort of hermetic stimuli environment is required for video game licensing purposes
any sort of revelation of internal process related to "model" or "engine" would be considered tantamount to revealing details of internal security practices, essentially an electronic breach...

>>15131418
>Notice that they will never make a concrete falsifiable prediction about AI's capabilities
there won't be anything remotely close to a self-driving car on the roads in the next 5 years

>>15131418
>>15132533
also, adversarial examples are not going away for the next 5 years

>>15132481
there's hardly anything worth calling "maths" in current ML

>>15132545
This. It's a total black box once you get past the basic learning heuristics, and most researchers are stealing their heuristics from white papers published years ago.

>>15131528
I don't understand what nihilism has to do with any of this, nor do I care what code monkeys who haven't thought about the whys and hows of the implications of their work think about issues related to intelligence and consciousness. It's laughable that you even saw fit to bring up the fact that *not all* AI researchers may be physicalists let alone functionalists. Yeah, I stand by my original characterization.

>>15132478
Level 0: no driving automation
Level 1: driver assistance
Level 2: partial driving automation
Level 3: conditional driving automation
Level 4: high driving automation
Level 5: full driving automation

They're a bit arbitrary but it's a standard set by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

>>15131442
kill yourself retardednigger
what a worthless post
go back to the kids table

>>15132577
>tfw you realize normies are level 2

>>15132570
Why did you even write that post? You're literally just foaming at the mouth while conceding that most AI researchers don't give a fuck about functionalism. Lashing out and denigrating experts who concern themselves with technological advancement and refuse to drink your koolaid doesn't prove me wrong.

>>15133588
the n word is racist

>>15130969
>artificial intelligence
>brain
a brain is not required for complex behaviour to emerge that is greater than the sum of its parts

>>15130969

>>15130969
Well people build and used for hundred years diopter sights without knowing how do they work.

>>15131117
>How do you know if something is "really intelligent"
>How do you define "real" intelligence
Modified Turing test.
Give machine some intellectual task: write answers in chat, draw images or drive car.
1. If observers can't distinguish human doing such task and machine - this is intelligence.
2. Another variant of outcome: observer can tell difference but machinesdoes task bette, this applies es to tasks having objective measure, like car driving, faster lap time, or winning chess game. Then it's intellect too.

>>15132409
You got real quiet after you got your example

>>15130969
We know how the brain works

>nature blindly stumbles into create human level intelligence
>it's impossible for an intelligent agent to deliberate create a human level intelligence though
For fucks sake.

>>15130969
We figured out how to make airplanes before birds.

>>15130969
>happens randomly just cause
opps sorry soientists

>>15135065
Evolution isn't real, microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution, reality does not presuppose induction is valid for everything for no reason

>>15132442
What was the output?

>>15132533
Google's self-driving car drove 10 million miles on the road almost a decade ago with a lower accident rate than humans. Tesla's autopilot is in common use right now. You want to try that again?

>>15132536
>adversarial examples
That I can agree with
>>15135054
Lol, the thread drifted off the front page for a while and I didn't feel like searching for it.

>>15135198
I'm starting to think most anti-AI people really derive their beliefs from this starting point

>>15131058
But scientists DID figure out birds before engineers made planes, DID figure out moles before engineers built boring machines, DID figure out eyes before engineers made photocameras, and DID figure out fish before engineers made U-boats

>>15135206
No idea, depends on his AI. The answer is in the Bible through

>feed an AI model enough data that it has all human knowledge and it knows every single problem solving method humans use down to the smallest minute detail
Here is your AGI without understanding intelligence

>>15135418
You have never programmed anything in your life have you? Or just did any engineering work in general, or just any work at all that wasn't being an employee for academia right?

>>15135214
>I'm starting to think most anti-AI people really derive their beliefs from this starting point
Nah, most "anti-AI" people are ML scientists who think the cultists surrounding their field are subhuman. The more you understand about heuristics and ML the less you believe an AGI will emerge from the field.

>>15135243
Sure, but I don't think it's that major of an error, as a very large percentage of humans would get the same question wrong. Still, I appreciate the concrete targets. We can check back in with GPT-4 and gauge its progress.

>>15135486
>Nah, most "anti-AI" people are ML scientists who think the cultists surrounding their field are subhuman. The more you understand about heuristics and ML the less you believe an AGI will emerge from the field.
Lol, this tells me you aren't anywhere near the ML field. ML researchers are literally using ChatGPT to help them code more efficiently. Every single tech company is going in big on AI now that they've seen what it can do.

>>15135526
>to code
You can tell by a single word whether you're talking to a moron

>>15135526
>a very large percentage of humans would get the same question wrong
Not of the memorized the entire Bible, which the program is supposed to have done like you said

The fact it needs human "gauging" tells everything about the "intelligence" of machines. Only humans recognize if the results are correct, the machine just spills out whatever is programmed.

>>15135526
and by the way you haven't returned with an output, you just said it isn't a major error. What exactly did your retarded program give you?

>>15130969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXpbDZcb3LQ

After

>>15135540
>two words
>Not a phrase I used anywhere
Maybe not a word, but you can certainly tell by a single comment. It is clear that you've never done anything impressive in your entire life. You have the reasoning ability of a toddler, and ChatGPT would outscore you on the SAT.

>Not of the memorized the entire Bible, which the program is supposed to have done like you said
First, I never said it memorized the Bible, though it is true the Bible was included in its training set. Second, pretty bizarre standard you've set, that for something to be intelligent, it has to be far more informed and perceptive than the average human.

>>15135547
All I asked for was a concrete prediction of something AI will never be able to do. Thus, in 5-8 years when AI can clearly recognize Biblical logic and analyze legal texts or religious doctrine according to predefined criteria, another round of AI haters will have to acknowledge that their beliefs were groundless. Or maybe they'll just move the goalposts back again, who knows.

The rest of you, of course, continue to refuse the request outright, because you know any concrete prediction your limited minds can produce will be inevitably be proven wrong. That'll expose you as the irrelevant frauds that you are and open you to the ridicule you deserve. So, in order to avoid the corresponding wave of cognitive dissonance, you just aggressively sidestep the issue and sling 3rd grade insults like a child

>>15135547
And it is his example, he should give the output. I just went and tried it with a similar prompt. It gives a generic response about contacting the authorities and mental health professionals before running a DNA test.

>>15130969
these people know a lot more than you're assuming, dude. the brain has already been mapped, almost entirely. anything you think, see, feel, visualize, even strings of associated ideas, have all already been mapped and can be detected and read out on a computer screen. literally all of this can be interfaced with artificial intelligence. you'd be offended and afraid of just how much is technologically possible yet kept from the public eye at this point.

>>15130984
Because what they can create with current understanding is still useful

>>15135668
>almost entirely. anything you think, see, feel, visualize, even strings of associated ideas, have all already been mapped and can be detected and read out on a computer screen.
your post is so retarded it made me laugh. No they haven't invented a telepathy machine.

>>15135668
this is what psychotic delusion looks like

consciousness is a mystery
it is not known how it emerges. just that is related to the electrified meat (brain)

"AI" are expert systems with massive databases. there is no intelligence = consciousness. Beware the AI god, because the wizard of Oz will be behind it, pulling the levers of the algorithm.

>>15135065
You're an idiot
>>15135198
You're even more of an idiot

>>15131616
>its been proven true that there are things in the brain that are non-computational.
So are you still gonna post the proof or not?

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROGRAM A GENERAL INTELLIGENCE ON SILICON
This is the end of it, anyone still posting AGI shit should be banned from the board for being a scientifically illiterate retard.

>>15130974
>They literally don't think that.
You're literally a faggot. ML experts will smell their own farts thinking they can do it when they read the headlines on AI consciousness.

>>15130996
Built on the foundations of watching anime, bad genetics and being an edge lord.

Oh how quaint.

>>15136465
Back to your containment board, christcuck.

>>15136531
I'm not religious whatsoever, and I have no idea why you'd say this
See the earlier videos with jeffrey shainline to understand why silicon isn't capable of producing the hardware needed for a generalized intelligence.
Also you're not smart

>>15136538
>just watch a video bro
Can you reproduce the argument for me in textual form?

>>15136538
>I'm not religious whatsoever, and I have no idea why you'd say this
Because of the certainty and anger I detected in your comment, and because you wanted to stop further discussion. Usually it's only people whose religious dogma is violated who talk like that, and there's obviously a large religious-dogma-ish element to the view you posted. But if you're really not religious I apologize.

>>15136610
The talk is about these beautiful silicon superconductor machines that can be built, they'd be floating around the asteroid belt reading data from the CMBR with extremely high fidelity, and also collapsing small asteroids into black holes in order to potentially create child universes. It's really cool stuff.
For the neuron bit, biological neurons are very efficient and synapses are very small, a synapse is about 7 to 10 nanometers and extend out in all spacial dimensions with a level of compactness that really isn't possible with any other set of atoms of the periodic table. While it may be possible to match the power of a biological brain, it will require orders of magnitude more volume and mass and atoms to do so, so it's basically moot. For any volume V biological neurons will have the greatest amount of compute possible in that volume
>>15136612
I like biology and evolution, it's my favorite

>>15136630
>For the neuron bit, biological neurons are very efficient and synapses are very small, a synapse is about 7 to 10 nanometers and extend out in all spacial dimensions with a level of compactness that really isn't possible with any other set of atoms of the periodic table. While it may be possible to match the power of a biological brain, it will require orders of magnitude more volume and mass and atoms to do so, so it's basically moot. For any volume V biological neurons will have the greatest amount of compute possible in that volume
Okay that sounds fair enough, but it's also just an argument about practical feasibility, not theoretical possibility.
It's just a ballpark comparison, I know a single neuron is much more complicated than a transistor, but there's 3 nanometer silicon in the works.
Also human brain has ~80b neurons and gpt-3 has 175b parameters. Again I know it's not the same but even if we'd need 100 parameters to do the work of 1 biological neuron that means we're only 2 orders of magnitude away.
Finally ANN workload is very parallel so it's not really a problem if you need a whole datacenter of supercomputer to run it.
All of which is to say it's not as clear-cut impossible as you made it sound.

>>15131453
>the brain doesn't appear to work by classical physics or doing calculations
is there any evidence for this claim?

>>15131418
as opposed to the AI futurists who continuously make falsifiable predictions about the future capability of AI and are routinely shown to be wrong time and time again every time for the last 70 years?

>>15131418
Cult Thinking 101: "It's everyone else who's wrong!"

>>15137099
Yes, the vast majority of them continuously underestimated how quickly AI would advance toward human level intelligence. Then you have people like Ray Kurzweil, whose general timeline for AGI has remained on track since the 90s.

Stop being a coward and make a falsifiable prediction.

>>15137147
Yeah, no kidding. At this point it is only the tiniest minority who still have their heads buried in the sand about the imminent arrival of AGI. But what they lack in numbers, they certainly make up for in religious fervor

>>15131119
>The capacity to perceive the forms.
By that definition a 5 dollar webcam is intelligent.

>>15137409
Only 5 gorillion more parameters before general intelligence.

>>15130969
Thing is they might create something with intelligence but lacking the peripheral parameters of what it should. They might accidentally create a monster. The age old scientific question of not can but should.

>>15130969
you're not allowed to know how the brain works

mathetmatic formulae sharing great wisdoms are based

It's funny because AI literally only requires a retard brain to make
which scares me because it can easily just replace 90% of jobs overnight

>>15137409
Kurzweil hasn't had a correct prediction for over a decade

>>15136641
Silicon can't be stacked into 3 spacial dimensions to process information without getting down to 4 Kelvin. This alone renders silicon based AGI impossible on earth regardless of parameter size or any software solution.

AGI is not possible in silico and at this point we should just ban the retards on this board who keep bringing up this science fiction idea.