‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

To grieve, or not to grieve?

167 points · 156 comments · stabbles

  1. js8 · · focus · HN ↗
    I am also an optimist about AI, although I worry about the labor aspect as well (as a leftist I see the class aspect of this, on the other hand, as a computer programmer, computers were also originally meant to replace human labor, and we all see what happened).

    My view is, current top AIs do multiple different things:

    1. Interpret and output natural language

    2. Do formal logical reasoning

    3. Do informal logical reasoning

    4. Provide encyclopedic knowledge

    5. Discern vague instructions/statements and fill the most likely gaps (kind of error correction)

    6. Serve as a model of the human mind, a proxy for a person

    7. Translate between different languages, formal and informal

    All these things are combined in these huge, hard-to-understand blobs of weights. I think humanity would be better off by understanding each aspect separately, but disentangling them will take decades of philosophical research. So there is a lot of interesting work ahead of us.

    1. pwndByDeath · · focus · HN ↗
      Doing formal logic because they memorized the token patterns of humans doing formal logic.
      1. whattheheckheck · · focus · HN ↗
        You can ask it to provide a prolog or datalog program
        1. pwndByDeath · · focus · HN ↗
          The inherent 1st order thinking in that way of thinking... It highlights just how little we understand what we understand, and how utterly ignorant we are of what we don't.

          I'm already seeing new "engineers" who cannot work things out without AI holding their hand

          1. Valodim · · focus · HN ↗
            Like those people who can't drive stick shift. What do they even do if they need to operate a real car?
            1. pwndByDeath · · focus · HN ↗
              Perhaps I'm not intelligent enough to understand, Many people don't exercise thinking, many educated and capable people prefer not to, comparing that state to LMs and calling it dangerous intelligence is a bit too much emphasis on the later even of the first part may fit. It could be dangerous, like letting someone who can't drive stick loose in traffic.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.