[dware]

I was just talking about this the other day. Fascinating.

[Jonty30]

I dont think it is sudden and not necessarily unexpected.

[DannyTN]

Theory of Mind:
I don’t mind if you don’t.

[cowboyusa]

Uh, oh, Skynet is becoming aware.

[Vision]

bm

[PetroniusMaximus]

We’ve been ruled by AI since the Seventies.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks for posting.

[AndyJackson]

the latest iteration delivered results comparable to a 9-year-old human.

Copying the mind of an 80 yo demented President is proving to be a bigger challenge. The computer cannot be trained yet to ferret out young girls to sniff their hair.

[rellic]

If any of you ever studied “Set” theory you’d understand AI.
It all about how you store and process information eg numbers. Computers are 1’s and 0’s. Poeple are more analog
but we all process sets of information much the same way. Nothing fancy about that

[noiseman]

That’s a little bit like saying that a record player (just to keep this understandable for the Joe Biden crowd) has the ability to sing opera. Yes, I know the difference is that the AI chatbot wasn’t initially programmed (allegedly) to say some of the things that it is now saying, but it’s not like it has any awareness of what it’s doing. It’s simply assembling “pre-recorded” pieces of information, according to a set of pre-programmed rules, and spitting out an imitation of a “thought.” Just because a computer is a more complex machine than, say, a record player, doesn’t mean that it’s not still a machine and nothing more.

The danger comes when we either, A) give this “AI” software control over critical systems, like weapons or critical thinking infrastructure, etc., or B) falsely believe that the parlor trick of imitating human thought is real and as a result put too much faith in the utterances of “AI.” Of course, the worst case scenario is to make both of those mistakes, which I fear we will do before long. The real danger isn’t that AI will become “self-aware”, which is impossible, but that we idiots will believe it is and therefore give its unpredictable calculations authority over our lives.

Don’t ever forget, it’s just a fancy calculator. Don’t be fooled by the nonsense that spews from “futurists” and other members of the scientism cult who want to worship it.

[rightwingcrazy]

—Kosinski’s team used “sanity checks” to analyze how well GPT networks understood the scenario and the human’s predicted response.

Does a typical chess program have a “theory of mind”? From the outside looking in, it looks like it’s trying to figure out what you’re thinking, to predict your response. Or maybe it’s not doing anything like that.

[sauropod]

.

[mountainlion]

https://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/2018/12/robots-killed-29-scientists-in-hushed-up-rampage-ai-conspiracy-theory-takes-off-just-in-time-for-the-holidays.html

[Dave Wright]

Having watched my grandson develop his awareness over the first years of his life, I don’t see any comparison to the way current machine learning is trained.

Humans have a physical body that is accessible to our mind through sensations. Almost every act a baby or toddler does that isn’t an autonomic response is about exploring the causal relationships between their thoughts and the outside world. First, they explore the causal movement of their body parts and then gradually extend this to causal movement of physical objects. I was amazed at how interested a toddler is in causing a door to open and close over and over again.

Because machines have no senses connecting their thoughts to a physical body, they have no motive to explore causality which is the foundation of subjective human agency. Theory of mind develops when we perceive that others like us also have agency. Machines are very clever mina birds, but they can’t have a theory of mind without being integrated into a sensing body that interacts with the physical world to survive.