Comment by ilaksh

Comment by ilaksh 3 days ago

10 replies

Many researchers may be interested in making minds that are more animal-like and therefore more human. While this makes sense to certain extent to gain capabilities, if you take it too far then you run into obvious problems.

There is enough science fiction demonstrating reasons for not creating full-on digital life.

It seems like for many there is this (false) belief that in order to create a fully general purpose AI, we need a total facsimile of a human.

It should be obvious that these are two somewhat similar but different goals. Creating intelligent digital life is a compelling goal that would prove godlike powers. But we don't need something fully alive for general purpose intelligence.

There will be multiple new approaches and innovations, but it seems to me that VLAs will be able to do 95+% of useful tasks.

Maybe the issues with brittleness and slow learning could both be addressed by somehow forcing the world models to be built up from strong reusable abstractions. Having the right underlying abstractions available could make the short term adaptation more robust and learning more efficient.

NebulaStorm456 3 days ago

I disagree. As many intellectuals and spiritual mystics attest to their personal experience, knowledge actually liberates mind. Imagine a mind which truly understands that it is embedded inside a vastness which spans from planck scale to blackholes. It would be humble or more likely amoral.

  • dasil003 3 days ago

    Why? This is arbitrary speculation on your part. We can't know such a mind through our imagination any more than an amoeba can know ours.

    • NebulaStorm456 3 days ago

      Why is science fiction considered a better way to know how artificial minds would behave?

  • lo_zamoyski 3 days ago

    What?

    > knowledge actually liberates mind

    Okay, sure, at least according to a certain interpretation, but...

    > Imagine a mind which truly understands that it is embedded inside a vastness which spans from planck scale to blackholes. It would be humble or more likely amoral.

    This is just gobbledygook. The conclusion does not even follow from the premises. You are question begging, assuming that moral nihilism is actually true, and so naturally, any mind in touch with the truth would conclude that morality is bullshit.