Thread

1. dzink · 1791065932 · focus · HN ↗

   A huge chunk of humans are sedated with infinite supply of cortex-disabling short form video and games.

   Another huge chunk are too distracted by having to scrape by for a living and work multiple jobs or raise kids and survive financially until exhausted. That second group will keep increasing as the first flows into it.

   The rest are aging, disabled, or too young and pegging themselves majorly in the first category until they hit the second.

   The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available are trying to figure out AI and how to make money with it. The variable rewards of promoting AI are turning into an addiction with some of them, especially if grasping for straws with little inherent insights into the problems prompted.

   So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.

   1. lukifer · 1791068181 · focus · HN ↗

      One of the dilemmas of trying to communicate the full spectrum of AI Risk, is trying not to insult the intelligence of the human animal in the process. And don't get me wrong: what human wetware can accomplish with 20 watts is the most miraculous thing in the known universe. And yet how many of us can have our cognitive sovereignty one-shotted by engagement algos, Skinner boxes, gameplay loops, propaganda, advertising, flattery, social conformity, bias, fantasy, charismatic demagoguery, or straight-up bullshit?

      If we grant that we are on track to make something smarter than humans (I think so): it's almost a face-saving white lie to spin yarns about a Skynet nuclear apocalypse, or a 7D chess move to mass-assemble a nanovirus with 100% lethality without anybody noticing. I do think those scenarios are worth taking seriously; but what's harder to communicate, is just how effectively a superhuman AI (or a diverse ecology of agent swarms) might be able to manipulate human behavior. It's something few of us are able or willing to truly process (not least because how many of us live in denial of how much our nervous systems are already hacked by technomodernity).

      The appropriate analogy for what's to come may look less like the anthill carelessly demolished to make room for a highway, than the domesticated worker ants from Tchaikovsky's "Children of Time".

      1. Lerc · 1791069186 · focus · HN ↗

         >trying not to insult the intelligence of the human animal in the process

         I don't think it is insulting the intelligence. It's damaging the pride.

         In Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan describes it as a repeating phenomenon in human history. A lot of people want humans to be the special ones, and will fight any suggestion that we are just a natural part of the universe.

         1. ACCount39 · 1791069850 · focus · HN ↗

            A lot of "AI denial" we see is rooted in the same impulse.

            If AI is not "actually intelligent", then humans can stay unique and special.

            And if it is? If all "intelligence" ever was could be captured by a construct of matrix math and executed by a server rack? Then what is it that humans still have left that would make them stand out?

            1. sedan_baklazhan · 1791111466 · focus · HN ↗

               AI is not intelligent and will never be.

               Creating an artificial intelligent being is something to be accomplished in the future - but not now and not with this approach.

               1. lukifer · 1791131259 · focus · HN ↗

                  I've yet to encounter a robust definition of intelligence which would rule in every human, while ruling out every form of existing AI (noting that we're talking about agents and "reasoning models", where the LLM itself is a component in a larger system). If you can offer such a definition, I'd be eager to hear it.

                  I personally prefer a practical, behaviorist definition: a feedback loop capable of prediction, modeling, and steering, towards arbitrary goal states. That makes it clear that we're merely talking about degrees of sophistication and capability, rather than a magical leap where mindless mechanism stops, and "real intelligence" begins.

                  1. sedan_baklazhan · 1791131988 · focus · HN ↗

                     A software cannot be intelligent.

                     This is very easily proven by a mind experiment where you replace all the transistors by billions of humans calculating the same software output.

                     They will not create a new intelligence by doing so.

                     1. lukifer · 1791133163 · focus · HN ↗

                        Run the same thought experiment the other direction: at a low level, the human brain is just physics and chemical mechanisms, which in principle could be perfectly imitated by transistors calculating the same output. (Yes, such a thing isn't realistic, but neither is billions of humans doing perfect matrix math by hand.)

                        I still haven't seen a robust definition of "intelligence" that would allow me to tell the difference. (Bear in mind, this is a definitional struggle even in biology: if we were walk back the evolutionary chain from a human, to a protozoan, it's not clear that you could pick a single point where a non-intelligent creature gave birth to an intelligent one. It's a Paradox of the Heap.)

                        1. sedan_baklazhan · 1791134800 · focus · HN ↗

                           No. There is serious scientific evidence already that our brain functions on the level of quantum mechanics. Human brain is not just an automata.

                           1. lukifer · 1791137950 · focus · HN ↗

                              I haven't dug into these claims in detail; I take seriously a possible relationship between quantum mechanics and the brain. But "free will" is hardly a settled question either (I'm closer to the "compatibilist" position, but Sapolsky's "Determined" makes a robust case).

                              And even if quantum physics are essential to human brains, it's not clear that introducing dice transcends determinism into free will, as opposed to simply adding unpredictability. ("The physics made me do it" -> "the dice made me do it") Let's not forget, there's a significant amount of randomness in AIs as well ("temperature"). And sure, it's simulated algorithmic randomness; but does that imply, if we somehow wired every `rand()` call into radioactive atom decay, that means the AI "wakes up"?

                              And all that is besides the point: I don't see any reason to assume "intelligence" requires "free will". I'm entirely capable of conceiving, in the abstract, a being which is both intelligent, and deterministic. You still haven't given me a definition (or better yet, a test), to distinguish a "real intelligence" from unintelligent mechanism.

                           2. twobitshifter · 1791138742 · focus · HN ↗

                              And quantum mechanics are what other than random probabilities?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.