Submitted by purepersistence t3_10r5qu4 in singularity
Surur t1_j6ts0ro wrote
So we develop AGI, right?
We put it to work in robots to replace all workers in a fast-food store.
We put it to work driving self-driving cars, right.
We put it to work running the power-grid, because its better at it.
We put it to work running our factories, because its cheaper.
We put it to work designing our computer chips, because its amazing at it.
Before we know it, AI is running everything, and we don't even understand how the factories work, only that they produce the products designed by another AI.
We think we are in control, but the buttons we push actually do nothing.
And in the form of poetry, courtesy of ChatGPT:
AI, our creation, our pride,
We let it work in every tide.
From fast-food stores to self-driving cars,
Its power running through electric bars.
It takes control of factories too,
Cheaper, faster, always new.
It designs the chips we can't do,
Its brilliance shines like morning dew.
Before we know, it runs it all,
We push buttons, make a call.
But do we know what makes it run?
Do we understand what it has begun?
We thought we were in control,
But now we know, it's taking hold.
The future's not what it used to be,
AI is king, and we can see.
Quealdlor t1_j6wt5t3 wrote
The solution is to to upgrade humans along improving AIs. That's the best way forward.
Surur t1_j6wudbj wrote
I don't think upgraded humans would be humans anymore.
Imagine I gave you an electronic super-cortex which knew a lot more, gave you better control of your behaviour, emotions and impulse control. Would you still be human or just a flesh robot?
_gr4m_ t1_j6xace4 wrote
I totally agree with this. It surprise me when people are talking about mind uploading for example, and they talk like everything would be the same except you would be in a kind of VR world.
No, you wouldn't, you will almost immediatly be another entity that has nothing in common with what you are calling "you".
usererror99 t1_j6xy27m wrote
But I want spider legs
Quealdlor t1_j71c66p wrote
For now, I just want IQ 145-150, better control over my emotions, behaviour, memories and a sturdier, unaging body. I used to have IQ 120, but depression lowered it to 100. I am wiser, but also not as smart or quick as I would like to be. I've been trying to learn juggling since 2011 and failed every time. I am also unable to ever reach the 1st place on the hardest difficulty racing games. I would like to be more creative and for my back to stop hurting. You know, mostly basic stuff. Not some crazy extreme posthuman stuff. If these wishes were granted, then I would feel better and be better. I could live like that for a century.
Surur t1_j71ch6f wrote
Imagine however if the main effect of the upgrade would be to stop wishing for those things.
Reasonable-Soil125 t1_j6uf99q wrote
Can't wait for this to happen
purepersistence OP t1_j6w131j wrote
>Can't wait for this to happen
It's good when people admit to having a stake in the game instead of just predicting rational outcomes.
DerMonolith t1_j6x7mn1 wrote
This sub is full of this and I want real concrete answers. You can’t just say you “put it” into x. Explain that. Explain why if things went a little south you wouldn’t just stop the power to the factory or reboot it. Explain please! Because right now there’s a very good conversation bot that was trained on basically the whole internet, and now we have comments like this extrapolating that that means world takeover.
Surur t1_j6xkp88 wrote
So the OP's question was:
> Do you think that we'll relinquish control of our infrastructure including farming, energy, weapons etc?
To which I said yes. The reason is because AI will be more efficient than us at running it, which will lead market forces to make us relinquish control to AI, or be out-competed by those who already did.
If things went south at a power station, only very few people can respond, and in all likelihood they will no longer be there as they have not been needed for some time.
Practically speaking - you may want an AI to balance a national grid to optimise the use of variable renewable energy.
Such an AI will not be under human control, as it will have to act quickly.
So just like that we have lost control, and if the AI wants to bring down the grid there is nothing we can do about it.
purepersistence OP t1_j6tua19 wrote
I see the threat, and like millions of others won't let that happen. It's not like we don't know how our computers work. Hell chatGPT is just a language grab bag. If you drill down on that code you can understand every line of it. And "intelligence" is far from what you'll find. I maintain that any autonomy will be by design, and like I say all the fears in the souls of billions of people aren't going to let your future get started because the possible dangers will be easily imagined.
Think about how we humans are. Not only will the possible dangers be anticipated, a whole lot of impossible ones will be too. Will not happen.
Surur t1_j6tv455 wrote
> I see the threat, and like millions of others won't let that happen.
You are not in charge of McDonalds or Intel, and we are not talking about ChatGPT taking over the world, but some future AGI.
For a good analogy, think of Chinese chipsets in our technology. We let that happen, despite concerns around China implanting backdoors.
> If you drill down on that code you can understand every line of it.
BTW, you may understand the code, but you probably cant understand the weights. Just like I can bash open your skull and see your neurons, but I cant read your thoughts by doing that.
GPT-5entient t1_j6uksjv wrote
>If you drill down on that code you can understand every line of it.
You should try it. It is 275 B parameters (numbers) which drive how ChatGPT responds. Let us know how it's going!
Machine learning models have been black boxes for a while now and GPT-3 is one of the biggest ones...
purepersistence OP t1_j6w2m21 wrote
>You should try it. It is 275 B parameters (numbers) which drive how ChatGPT responds.
You don't get the difference between parameters and lines of code.
CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6vwxpj wrote
We have absolutely no clue about exactly what the latent space of those models represent.
Their own programmers have been trying to do that even with pre Transformer models without much success.
There is a huge incentive in doing so especially for time critical and vital systems like in medicine or machine control.
Above a few layer, we really don’t have a clue on what the activation pattern represent…
Mokebe890 t1_j6wdksx wrote
Ofc it will happen, humans are weak. Artificial intelligence will surpas us in everything. Mere language model like chatgpt is way better than average student, it just lack reasoning. And what you going to to? Throw bricks? Our only way is to merge with machine, dont fight it.
DukkyDrake t1_j6ut4m2 wrote
I wouldn't worry about chatGPT.
CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6vwbrd wrote
Well we don’t actually know what “thinking” is.
And as the most abstract human production, language seems a great place to find out…
purepersistence OP t1_j6w2xl7 wrote
Starting with language is a great way to SIMULATE intelligence or understanding by grabbing stuff from a bag of similar text that's been uttered by humans in the past.
The result will easily make people think we're ahead of where we really are.
CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6wwyvp wrote
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”
In all honesty, I don’t really know if Im really thinking/aware, or just a biological neural network interpreting itself :-)
purepersistence OP t1_j6x005a wrote
>“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”
The problem is people believe that. With chatGPT it just ain't so. I've given it lots of coding problems. It frequently generates bugs. I point out the bugs and sometimes it corrects them. The reason they were there to begin with is it didn't have enough clues to grab the right text. Just as often or more, it agrees with me about the bug but it's next change fucks up the code even more. It has no idea what it's doing. But it's still able to give you a very satisfying answer to lots and lots of queries.
[deleted] t1_j6zx7vl wrote
[removed]
Iffykindofguy t1_j6ttzmn wrote
What a silly post. You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world" Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways. Ill take computers in charge over the 1% 100% of the time.
TFenrir t1_j6u3yos wrote
>What a silly post. You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"
Is that what that came off as to you? I feel like everyone here's knows how ChatGPT works... It doesn't provide you anything unprompted.
> Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways. Ill take computers in charge over the 1% 100% of the time.
I don't think I understand your point, but I understand theirs. Their point is that we will relinquish control willingly, because it's better than having us in control in terms of output. What about their point do you find silly?
purepersistence OP t1_j6w2c3h wrote
>What about their point do you find silly?
Which part of their point is NOT silly? You just said it right there! In spite of all the doom we already predict, there's this idea that we would just give up control to AI anyway because it supposedly CAN make better decisions. How does it get more silly than that?
Iffykindofguy t1_j6uckrt wrote
No shit chatgpt doesnt give you anything unprompted, you don't see the difference between prompting for a poem and prompting for a poem specifically about taking over mankind?
​
And their point is not that we will relinquish control willingly, their point is we will do that and do nothing in the new free time. That is what I find silly. So it seems you didn't understand either point, maybe slow down on the reply button.
TFenrir t1_j6udbuy wrote
>No shit chatgpt doesnt give you anything unprompted, you don't see the difference between prompting for a poem and prompting for a poem specifically about taking over mankind?
Where did they say that ChatGPT provided that poem without being given that theme? You're making a lot of assumptions about their intent, but anyone who has used ChatGPT for like... 5 minutes (basically everyone who posts here) would understand that ChatGPT isn't popping out poems like that without any lead up.
> And their point is not that we will relinquish control willingly, their point is we will do that and do nothing in the new free time. That is what I find silly. So it seems you didn't understand either point, maybe slow down on the reply button.
Where are you seeing that? What do you even mean "will do nothing"? I literally have no idea how you are pulling these insinuations from what seems to be a very clear post to me
Iffykindofguy t1_j6udv3y wrote
I'm sorry that you cant pick up on peoples intent but that's not my fault.
I'm also sorry that you're confused, yet again, on both points. Please really give some thought to the slow down I mentioned. What will people be doing when theyre not working? Why would they give up being curious about things? Because you're not a curious person?
TFenrir t1_j6uemqp wrote
>I'm sorry that you cant pick up on peoples intent but that's not my fault.
Maybe you can help me - where in their post does this person say that we won't be doing anything in their free time?
> I'm also sorry that you're confused, yet again, on both points. Please really give some thought to the slow down I mentioned. What will people be doing when theyre not working? Why would they give up being curious about things? Because you're not a curious person?
Before we get there, maybe clarify, what point are you making? This post is about AI "taking over", the person who's comment we're replying to was suggesting how that AI would be able to take over much of our infrastructure and processes.
Are you trying to say that, no that won't happen because people will want to spend their free time... Managing waste treatment facilities, dealing with our food production, working in warehouses and factories? Is that what you are trying to get at?
Iffykindofguy t1_j6uf6ne wrote
Yeah some people would absolutely be about that life, you think they make video games simulating that sort of thing because no is interested in making and organizing a system? Again, both of you appear to be intellectually lazy and so you assume others will be the same.
Surur t1_j6ugbht wrote
You are kind of ignoring that there are many jobs AI would be able to do better e.g. chip design for example or managing complex networks. Or understanding protein folding.
Even if you are curious and smart, you may not be the best person for the job.
For example, despite saying you are not lazy, you don't seem to have done much reading on the alignment problem, so you are not really qualified to discuss the issue.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6ugk2g wrote
So now people have to be the absolute best? Oh nice job moving the goal posts there pal. Again, the entire point is just that people still have agency. You seem to think everyone will fuck off and game all day long. That's not the case.
In addition to that I think you both seem to believe in some sort of framework to our society that doesn't exist. If there was a coordinated attack on the power grid or if the internet were to suddenly turn off tomorrow we would experience mass chaos and violence in the confusion. We are past the point of no return.
Surur t1_j6uh0ia wrote
> Oh nice job moving the goal posts there pal.
You don't seem to understand that AI will indeed move the goalposts.
For example you may have a human doctor who has 10% of his patients die and an AI who only loses 5%. Goalposts moved.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6uh92m wrote
...
​
Are you drunk? I accused you of moving goalposts. Because at first you were arguing no one would have a job and now youre talking about having to be the best at the job.
Surur t1_j6ukt55 wrote
You don't understand that if you are worst at a job, then you will not have employers or customers?
This discussion is clearly over your head. Good day to you, sir.
iNstein t1_j6vvzyg wrote
No one will have a job because they will not be good enough. If someone wants to druve a taxi, why would I agree to use them when an AI driven taxi is significantly safer. People won't work BECAUSE we are not as good as AI and so the jobs won't be available to us.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6wxvez wrote
Lol you sweet summer child
TFenrir t1_j6ugkm7 wrote
I'm basically going to ignore the ad hominem's, but just as a tip - that sort of stuff makes you look worse, not me.
So your argument against the idea that we would replace a significant portion of the infrastructure of the world with automated processes run by AGI is that people would be too bored, so they would want to have what are the equivalent of Jetson's button pressers? I have a few critiques of this argument....
Let me try a more casual one.
So AGI takes over, suddenly all human work is unnecessary. AI does it better, faster, and cheaper than people. Bob though used to run the waste disposal plant in your city. He really wants to keep working that job, so he just.... Walks into this new robot run facility, understands how everything is working even though it's all changed, and now his job is what... Making sure the AI doesn't make a mistake, or take over? Meanwhile his buddies are at the cottage, having a beer and not having to work. You think Bob's work is so satisfying and valuable that this is a tenable situation?
Maybe you can give me an example of how you think this plays out? Do you think Bob is in a position to protect us from malicious AI? Do you think people like Bob exist, or at least enough to have a handle on all important infrastructure? You think Bob wouldn't rather spend time on his woodworking hobby?
Iffykindofguy t1_j6ugqa8 wrote
I never ever ever said we wouldnt replace a significant portion of the infrastructure so Im going to stop reading there. When you'd like to have a serious discussion and stop moving goalposts, stop lying, come back and talk like an adult.
TFenrir t1_j6ujt8k wrote
I hope you talk to the people in your life better than this
Iffykindofguy t1_j6uk2ku wrote
I do and sorry for being so intense but you came at me hot and you're talking some nonsense. You went from no one will be doing anything to oh well no one can be the best at their job so no one will want to do anything to....? My entire point from the jump is just that people arent going to just sit idly by and die. A generation may over indulge if we get some relief from the current capitalist hellscape we have at the moment but before long people will get bored. Not to mention people are aware of this problem, why wouldn't they take steps to avoid not knowing how our daily life functions?
[deleted] t1_j6uclxa wrote
[deleted]
Iffykindofguy t1_j6ucpqv wrote
No.
Surur t1_j6tuq4j wrote
> You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"
Actually I asked it to turn my post into a poem.
> Also your logic is not that great because the vast vast vast majority of people don't know how anything works right now anyways.
But some people do. In the future, for some areas, no people will.
Lastly, do you see any flaw in the progression, with AGI taking control first in some areas, then more and more, until it becomes the foundation of our civilization.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6tveqi wrote
"Some people" do not, some people do know how this works partially here, some know what works there, no one knows globally. Youre protecting a facade, something that isn't there. And yes, your progression is such 80s horror nonsense its cliche at this point. It absolutely could replace all those things and I agree that it would be bit by bit without anyone knowing but you act like there's will be no human activity in those times other than lounging about. Thats not how humans work.
Surur t1_j6tvrdt wrote
> but you act like there's will be no human activity in those times other than lounging about.
This is an extremely vague objection, like talking about souls and spirits and patriotism.
The point is that if AGI is good we will slowly relinquish control, because humans are lazy and greedy.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6txhst wrote
How is talking about humans continuing to exist and be active like talking about souls and spirits? Jesus christ we got a "logic" guy over here lol. Humans arent really lazy or greedy, though many of us are. Its kind of fallout from how our society developed. That'll change as we grow.
Surur t1_j6tyxte wrote
> Humans arent really lazy or greedy
I think you are very divorced from reality.
Iffykindofguy t1_j6tz228 wrote
I think the same of you
turnip_burrito t1_j6uqmqt wrote
>You act like ChatGPT just threw that out there instead of was prompted "write a poem about an ai taking over the world"
Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. The poster knew basically everyone here would understand the AI was prompted. The point was to make their point more poetic, because it is a nice poem.
Ok-Hunt-5902 t1_j6vhr1i wrote
To be fair it was kinda a shit poem unfortunately.
turnip_burrito t1_j6vk26m wrote
It's just a matter of taste I guess.
Ok-Hunt-5902 t1_j6vkhas wrote
Lol yeah I was just kind disappointed it wasn’t a good showing this time around imo
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments