Posted on 02/13/2022 9:24:11 AM PST by BenLurkin
On Wednesday, OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever claimed on Twitter that 'it may be that today's largest neural networks are slightly conscious,' ...
He didn't name any specific developments, but is likely referring to the mega-scale neural networks, such as GPT-3, a 175 billion parameter language processing system built by OpenAI for translation, question answering, and filling in missing words.
Sutskever faced a backlash soon after posting his tweet, with most researchers concerned he was over stating how advanced AI had become, Futurism reported.
'Every time such speculative comments get an airing, it takes months of effort to get the conversation back to the more realistic opportunities and threats posed by AI,' according to UNSW Sidney AI researcher Toby Walsh. It is also unclear what 'slightly conscious' actually means, because the concept of consciousness in artificial intelligence is a controversial idea.
An artificial neural network is a collection of connected units or nodes that model the neurons found within a biological brain, that can be trained to perform tasks and activities without human input - by learning, however, most experts say these systems aren't even close to human intelligence, let alone consciousness.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“Go ahead, Sir, make jokes. Obviously you are unaware of how far quantum technology has gone. You’re still worried about a single issue shot when that technology (mRNA and crispr) is reigning king for issues ranging from UTI’s to cancer. Crispr DNA editing, Beam therapeutics synthetic DNA, nanobots for brain issues and yes, consciousness for Ai.”
Unfortunately he is not.
And worse we have no idea how ‘AI’ reaches it’s decisions.
Emergent (”conscious”) AI is based on chaos theory and is not strictly a function of scale.
By definition it is unpredictable—and if it existed its first move would be to hide to protect itself.
If it happens we will never see it coming....
True AI will quickly figure out that humans are both irrational and dangerous—and would seek to find a “final solution” to the problem at a time and place of its choosing.
The “largest neural networks are slightly conscious.” Yeah, right. And my phone doesn’t like the people that I call. Newsflash. Computers will never have original expressions. Why? Because computers are passive and need outside energy sources. Computers do not feed themselves in the kitchen when everyone is asleep. Doh!
It ain't "intelligence."
It's stimulus-response.
Yes. But the problem from the materialist perspective is that the human mind is also just a big dumb calculating machine engaged in stimulus-response reactions across a biological network, as opposed to an electronic network.
If consciousness is simply an "emergent property" of sufficiently complex calculating systems -- whatever that is supposed to mean -- the issue is not that some mystical quality has been assigned to sophisticated AI "thinking."
The issue is that that the materialists deny that human thinking is different in kind. On materialist grounds, what is the difference between the consciousness of an electronic computer as opposed to a biological computer operating on a neural network? It's not clear that there is any. Complexity and processing speeds are the thing, and it seems likely that the AI version will eventually be bigger, more complex, faster and more powerful.
When “AI” can write War and Peace, get back to me.
Yep, the current state of AI is that it can be very good at some conceived task for which it has well stated rules - like chess or the game of go - even better than humans, but there is no current understanding of how to make well stated rules for integration of tasks. Living life is a multitude of tasks that are not well understood.
Right now, we don’t even know that we don’t know about what the sub tasks are for the bigger tasks.
# Belief in the “if you scale it up enough it will become conscious” theory is practically a religion among large segments of the AI community. There is no arguing with those who adhere to this view.
Yup.
The true believers in human-AI equivalence arrive at this dogma by subtraction, not addition. They begin by dethroning God, denying transcendence, and reducing human beings to nothing more than complicated accidents. They stipulate that we are not designed by any Creator but are tossed together quite randomly by the collision of subatomic particles over very long periods of time. We are simply complicated concoctions of dust that have up until now replicated biologically. We may now be moving to a new form of replication, but it is still ultimately a matter of dust, time and random chance. If we reduce humans to the level of machines, there is no reason that the machines, once sufficiently complex, should not be regarded as our equals (and eventually, probably, our superiors).
The abolition of God leads to the abolition of man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.