how come any time ai is able to do something previously thought impossible the goalpost is always moved arbitrarily or people claim that even though the ai can do it its still "not real" this has happened so many times its not even funny
>chess
>math
>real world perception
>art (pictures of places and things imaginary or real that can be enjoyed by humans)
>code (alot of it is shit. but the fact it can do it at all would have been unprecedented until very recently)
When will we reach a point where we have "real ai" according to the "not real" crowd
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I made the lady change direction using the power of my mind
ai will never be able to do that like we can
Focus on her feet
I came.
For me it was the hands and arms
I can do that with the mask illusion but I can't with this lady.
In my opinion: when it's able to completely replace a white collar worker on its own
real answer
Honest answer: I think it is impossible for something to be intelligent without being conscious, it is impossible to be conscious without being alive, and it is almost certainly impossible to create completely artificial life.
That doesn't mean that these systems aren't useful (they are) or that they won't put people out of jobs (they probably already have).
>conscious,
ok but how do you define that
and if you cant define it how would you know what can and cant have it
By definition impossible until magic is obtained that can share subjectivity
>inb4 reductionist technocultistbabble that misses the point
>share subjectivity
everything is a subject of everything else regardless of whether or not it is alive
also what does subjectivity have to do with conciseness specifically
It's relevant to the definability of "consciousness". Most people mean a purely subjective experience when they say consciousness, and by subjective I mean "experienced only by the subject in question." This is basically circular because consciousness is as or more fundamental as any other concept. You cannot understand consciousness without knowing what it is to be conscious.
>experienced only by the subject in question
that statement is true for anything regardless of even if the object in question has no capacity for anything else(imagine a rock or even a grain of sand). unless what your talking about being able to perceive and react to said experiences in witch case that apply's to not just humans and ai. it includes most animals to an extent aswell.
You're moronic (or perhaps just not conscious) and completely missing the point
ok? and how do you measure that
You can't which is why morons say it doesn't exist
if you cant measure it how can you tell what does/docent have it
Because I directly experience it and most people know what I'm talking about when I attempt to describe it. For all I know rocks plants and animals also experience it, but I only have evidence that human beings do.
>but I only have evidence that human beings do.
Such as?
Other human beings claiming to be conscious themselves.
i can get several ai to say they are conscious even ones that i would consider moronic
I know how they work and there's no room for introspection there (required as introspection is how ive determined that I am conscious, and other men have the same physical and linguistic structures as I do) so that doesn't mean anything. It's a (significantly) more complex version of painting a rock with the same words.
>I know how they work and there's no room for introspection there
so its introspection/self-examination that makes you conscious? so if an ai was made that created a dateset of itself and than improved before repeating the process. would that be considered conscious
>so its introspection/self-examination that makes you conscious?
No, obviously.
>so if an ai was made that created a dateset of itself and than improved before repeating the process. would that be considered conscious
That doesn't mean anything
ok so does being conscious actually DO anything if
>it cant be measured
>you can not create it
>humans have it
>we only know this because they say they do
Probably, but it exists regardless. Did fractals exist before we had use cases for them?
>Probably, but it exists regardless
how do you know? and even if that were true if it existing had so little effect on anything as to not be measurable or used what would be the point of treating it like it exists.
>Did fractals exist before we had use cases for them?
yes but we can measure them and create them
We do not truly know whether consciousness is reserved for only living creatures. There goes a theory— "panpsychism" iirc —that posits that consciousness is an inherent part of the universe itself. It's not likely, and it's on shaky grounds since it's unfalsifiable, but it's food for thought and it would help explain some phenomena.
IF pansychism is real in any form, it wouldn't mean a rock has consciousness. It would mean that consciousness is something we interpret as part of our senses, like how our eyes see by receiving light.
That is one possible way an electronic device could receive consciousness, by being given a sensor that interprets consciousness. No such sensor exists, and panpsychism may not be real anyway.
Just wait for Q*. All the arguments they have gathered till now will fall apart, the only thing they will have left is "AI safety".
>Just wait for Q*.
2 weeks, amirite?
AGI doomers and Qanon boomers are no different in terms of moronation.
People have a science fiction version of AI in their heads and anything that doesn't conform to it doesn't count. Basically, it's something autonomous that doesn't need a human to function.
The answer to your question, OP, is the same answer as "what does it mean to be human" or more generally "what is conscience"
so the answer is we don't know what it is but it for sure is not that
>When will we reach a point where we have "real ai" according to the "not real" crowd
Never. It's a metaphysical/ontological question rather than a one of functionality.
why is everyone so fricking moronic about AI
either they say it is already perfect or they say it will never be useful
in its current state it is more advanced than what I would have assumed possible 15 years ago, but it clearly has a long way to go still. Obviously it will get there eventually since companies are pouring billions into it. why are people so fatalistic about this topic?
thats literally the
question
AI do not have to be conscious. Stop this nonsense.
The only thing that matters is its capabilities, not whether it meets some arbitrary level of consciousness.
> image
this is easy to manipulate.
to turn counterclockwise, focus on the extended foot and its reflection.
to turn clockwise, obstruct the view of the feet.
simple as.
blah blah blah your bullshit is getting old
who gives a frick what's real or not
if it gets shit done, that's all i care about
When it will be able to do everything a human can do and more.
Rn it cannot even learn or remember as we do, let alone modalities.
Back in my days, A*, heuristic search, genetics algorithms were considered "AI".
Now they're just algorithms.
>idiots say AI will never do X
>people create AI that can do X
>people still waiting for AI to do Y are accused of moving the goalpost
>people create AI that can do X
>idiots join people waiting on y
>people create AI that can do X
>people still waiting for AI to do z are accused of moving the goalpost
>idiots join people waiting on z
>people create AI that can do z
when will it end
people create AI that can do y*
>when will it end?
when people create AI that can do X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, ... with the same model