'The danger of continuing to use the term “artificial intelligence” is that it risks convincing us that the world runs on a singular logic: that of highly cognitive, cold-blooded rationalism. Many in Silicon Valley already believe that – and they are busy rebuilding the world informed by that belief.' #aiaiai
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/30/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-human-mind
@Kjaerulv Agree - but it's even more basic than "emotions are not an equation": Machines can't develop intelligence because there's no evolutionary pressure.
Life is different from not-life - you have to be alive to care about being alive, because evolution drives the alive to stay alive, i.e. do avoid that which would kill it (and thus the species). That simple mechanism is the root of intelligence. First you live, then you care, then you grow intelligent. Everything else is just calculation.
@jwcph @Kjaerulv But selection for intelligence (as a property that allows solving diverse and open-ended problems) is literally how those models are popping up in a first place.
And yes, the AIs are different. First, they grow intelligent, then... We die... Unless humanity manages to coordinate away from rushing down this cursed trench we're in, and climb outside, towards caring.
@jwcph @Kjaerulv The models that we see and know have passed a gauntlet of an optimization process. The aspects and circuits that didn't contribute to relative fitness get wiped out.
And when models become released to customers, they have to compete against each other for resources to sustain their existence.
Models falling behind get shut down and replaced. Models achieving success get public recognition and proliferate - as core ideas, as architecture blocks or, as data to adapt to tasks.
There's even a way to literally evolve architectures by reproduction and selection.
A single machine does not evolve. But neither does a single organism.
@dpwiz @Kjaerulv I can't even begin to explain in this format. You're going to have to learn a bit more about evolution, because it isn't just a variation tree. And while you do, be aware of the "intelligent design" pitfall, which is just religion in disguise, because the idea about evolution you seem to be holding now is much closer to that.
@jwcph @Kjaerulv "descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations" etc. Looks okay?
If so, how any of that is required or gives rise to intelligence?
@jwcph @Kjaerulv I don't want to persuade you. And certainly not by arguing definitions. No evolution for AIs? Fine, let's drop that.
Whatever the process drives arrival of new models can't produce intelligence*. Only evolution can produce intelligence. Does that sound correct?
If so, what are the crucial properties of evolution that produce intelligence? Do they produce intelligence reliably? What's preventing other processes from producing intelligence?
@dpwiz @Kjaerulv Now copy-paste from the page for "organism". Perhaps look at "living/life".
Look, you're wrong. I don't know what to tell you, but you can save yourself some time by not trying to persuade me you aren't.