Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: D Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Paris : In Rush For Profits, AI Safety Issues Are Ignored Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:50:34 +0100 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <67e55c72-9634-7568-8a35-034bd127c016@example.net> References: <5cGcnReFBprdLzD6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <563e6d1d-fabb-598e-e500-0bcb847c7009@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-1597042781-1739523036=:12115" Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4166848"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M"; In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:65517 comp.os.linux.advocacy:685846 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1597042781-1739523036=:12115 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Fri, 14 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/13/25 4:07 PM, D wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >> >>> On 2/13/25 2:10 AM, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:58:30 -0500, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>     Neural networks can likely do "someone in there" even better, >>>>>     eventually. At the moment LLMs get most of the funding so NNs are a >>>>>     bit behind the curve. New/better hardware and paradigms are needed >>>>>     but WILL eventually arrive. >>>> >>>> So far there is nobody in there for CNNs. You know all the pieces and >>>> they >>>> don't magically start breathing when you put them together. It is true >>>> the >>>> whole system is a bit of a black box but it is describable. >>> >>> >>>  Well, I agree about "CNNs"  :-) >>> >>>  As for LLMs ... dunno. Get enough stuff going there and >>>  something very hard, maybe impossible, to distinguish >>>  from "someone in there" may be realized. Then what do >>>  we do - ruthlessly pull the plug ? >> >> Nope. Volition, will to live, drive, goals are completely missing. The best >> trick to find out if you're talking with an AI is to write nothing. A human >> will write "hello" after a few seconds. The AI will just sit there waiting >> for input. >> >> Yes... those things can be hardcoded, but what would make me impressed is >> when spontaneous behaviour, motivation, will to live emerges on its own, >> without being hard coded or simulated through logic. >> >> Then we're talking AI! > > I am not beyond thinking LLMs will eventually, maybe > kinda soon, exhibit 'conscious', 'self-realized' > intelligence. The complexity increases apace. At > SOME point .......... I do not things LLMs will reach consciousness, looking at the technology, training data and how they work. I see them as a potential "language center" of the brain of a AGI. > But how do we KNOW and what do we DO about it ? We look at the effects. That's all we can do. > Those are the HARD questions. Yes! Let me welcome you to alt.philosophy! =) Hard and interesting questions! > NNs seem MORE likely to yield 'consciousness', but > that's a few years along. But, once again, if we > realize there's "someone in there" what do we DO ? I believe they are more likely to give rise to something spontaneous, but I think there needs to be a fundamental technology shift or two, in order for them to yield anything close to that. Not in their current form, with the current technology. > IMHO - you make them a citizen. Let 'em run for > office and such. That is one option. An immortal, all knowing citizen. Does that scare you? ;) In the end, one option is that AI:s and robots become the children of our race, who will live on when we are gone. --8323328-1597042781-1739523036=:12115--