I missed this:

AI doesn’t know why it is important to get to the finish line , what it means to do so in relation to overarching goals that themselves are changed by reaching the finish line, and how reaching the goal means different things to different people. — Joshs

That is the danger I am talking about here. Once we are talking about a system that will is given the task over achieving X there is nothing much to say about what the cost of getting to this goal is. Much like as Asimov displayed in his Three Laws.

It seems you do not believe AGI is a possibility. you may be correct but many in the field do not agree.

On the off chance you are wrong then what?

Check my post for the use of hypotheticals.

In short, it is mostly a private matter for us to meditate upon and tinker with. Some will find use in tinkering and others will be repulsed by what they find and run away screaming.

Computation is not thought. — Joshs

Of course? You do at least appreciate that a system that can compute at a vastly higher rate than us on endless tasks will beat us to the finish line though? I am not talking about some 'other' consciousness at all. I am talking about the 'simple' power of complex logarithms effectively shackling us by our own ignorant hands - to the point where it is truly beyond out knowledge of control.

True, we provide the tasks. What we do not do is tell it HOW to complete the tasks. Creativity is neither here nor there if the system can as good as try millions of times and fail before succeeding at said task. The processing speed could be extraordinary to the point where we have no real idea how it arrives at the solution, or by the time we do it has already moved onto the next task.

Humans will be outperformed on practically every front.

The issue then is if we do not understand how it is arriving at solutions we also have no idea what paths it is taking and at what kind of immediate or future costs. This is what I am talking about in regards to providing something akin to a Moral Code so it does not (obviously unwittingly) cause ruinous damage.

It only takes a little consideration of competitive arenas to briefly understand how things good go awry pretty damn quickly. We do not even really have to consider competing AGI on the military front, in terms of economics in general it could quite easily lead to such competing sides to program something damn near to "Win at all costs".

That fact that AGI (if it comes about) cannot think is possibly worse than if it could.

For the record. In terms of consciousness I believe some form of embodiment is a requirement for anything resembling human consciousness. As for any other consciousness I have pretty nothing no comment on that as I think it is unwise to label anything other than human consciousness as being 'conscious' if we cannot even delineate such terms ourselves with any satisfaction.

Being conscious/sentient is not a concern I have for AGI or Super Intelligence.

That which is appealing is highly associated with goodness. I think this is a given, no?

Otherwise? What do you mean? I answered yes for the above reasons. The question is open to interpretation a bit too much I think.

I think you do not fully understand the implication of AGI here. Sentience is not one of them.

AGI will effectively out perform every individual human being on the planet. A single researchers years work could be done by AGI in a day. AGi will be tasked with improving its own efficiency and thus its computational power will surpass even further what any human is capable of (it already does).

The problem is AGI is potentially like a snowball rolling down a hill. There will be a point where we cannot stop its processes because we simply will not fathom them. A sentient intelligence would be better as we would at least have a chance of reasoning with it, or it could communicate down to our level.

No animal has the bandwidth of a silicon system.

Even though there are many things we don’t understand about how other organism function, we don’t seem to have any problem getting along with other animals, and they are vastly more capable than any AGI. — Joshs

They are not. No animal has ever beaten a Grand Master at chess for instance. That is a small scale and specific problem to solve. AGI will outperform EVERY human in EVERY field that is cognitively demanding to the point that we will be completely in the dark as to its inner machinations.

Think of being in the backseat of a car trying to give directions to the driver and the driver cannot listen and cannot care about what you are saying as it is operating at a vastly higher computational level and has zero self-awareness.

As far as I can see this could be a really serious issue - more so than people merely losing their jobs (and it is mere in comparison).

I think he meant an algorithm following a pattern of efficiency NOT a moral code (so to speak). It will interpret as it sees fit within the directives it has been given, and gives to itself, in order to achieve set tasks.

There is no reason to assume AGI will be conscious. I am suggesting that IF AGI comes to be AND it is not conscious this is a very serious problem (more so than a conscious being).

I am also starting to think that as AI progresses to AGI status it might well be prudent to focus its target on becoming conscious somehow/ Therein lies another conundrum. How do we set the goal of achieving Consciousness when we do not really know what Consciousness means to a degree where we can explicitly point towards it as a target?

Philosophy has a hell of a lot of ground work to do in this area and I see very little focus in attention towards these specific problems regarding the existential threat of AGI to humans if these things are neglected.

Yes – preventing and reducing² agent-dysfunction (i.e. modalities of suffering (disvalue)¹ from incapacity to destruction) facilitated by 'nonzero sum – win-win – resolutions of conflicts' between humans, between humans & machines and/or between machines.


¹moral fact

²moral truth (i.e. the moral fact of (any) disvalue functions as the reason for judgment and action / inaction that prevents or reduces (any) disvalue) — 180 Proof

Can you explain a little further. Not sure I grasp your point here. Thanks :)

The very same way an AI can beat human players in multiple games without being conscious. AGI does not mean necessarily mean conscious (as far as we know).

AGI means there will exist an AI system that can effectively replicate, and even surpass, individual human ability in all cognitive fields of interest. It may that this (in and of itself) will give rise to something akin to 'consciousness' but there is absolutely no reason to assume this as probable (possible, maybe).

That sounds kind of horrific. — ToothyMaw

Well, most of the population of the planet is already has an extended organ (phone).

I'm pretty certain AGI, or strong AI, does indeed refer to sentient intelligences, but I'll just go with your definition. — ToothyMaw

Absolutely not. AGI refers to human level intelligence (Artificial Intelligence).

Making AI answerable to whatever moral facts we can compel it to discover doesn't resolve the threat to humanity, however, but rather complicates it.

Like I said: what if the only discoverable moral facts are so horrible that we have no desire to follow them? What if following them would mean humanity's destruction? — ToothyMaw

If AGI hits then it will grow exponentially more and more intelligent than humans. If there is no underlying ethical framework then it will just keep doing what it does more and more efficiently, while growing further and further away from human comprehension.

To protect ourselves something needs to be put into place. I guess there is the off chance of some kind of cyborg solution, but we are just not really capable of interfacing with computers on such a scale as we lack the bandwidth. Some form of human hivemind interaction may be another solution to such a problem? It might just turn out that once AGI gets closer and closer to human capabilities it can assist in helping us protect ourselves (I am sure we need to start now though either way).

I would not gamble on a sentient entity being created at all. Perhaps setting human-like sentience would be the best directive we could give to a developing AGI system. If we can have a rational discussion (in some form or another) then maybe we can find a balance and coexist.

Of course this is all speculative at the moment, but considering some are talking about AGI coming as soon as the end of this decade (hopefully not that soon!) it would be stupid not to be prepared. Some say we are nowhere near having the kind of computing capacity needed for AGI yet and that it may not be possible until something like Quantum Computing is perfected.

Anyway, food for thought :)

Also: Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics' were deficient, and he pointed out the numerous contradictions and problems in his own writings. So, it seems to me we need something much better than that. I would have no idea where to start apart from what I have written above, which is definitely not sufficient. — ToothyMaw

Well, yeah. That is part of the major problem I am highlighting here. Anyone studying ethics should have this topic at the very forefront of their minds as there is no second chance with this. The existential threat to humanity could be very real if AGI comes into being.

We can barely manage ourselves as individuals, and en masse it gets even more messy. How on earth are we to program AI to be 'ethical'/'moral'? To repeat, this is a very serious problem because once it goes beyond our capacity to understand what it is doing and why it is doing it we will essentially be being piloted by this creation.

If you are suggesting we root our ethical foundations for AGI in moral facts: even if we or the intelligences we might create could discover some moral facts, what would compel any superintelligences to abide those facts given they have already surpassed us analytically? What might an AGI see when it peers into the moral fabric of the universe and how might that change its - or others' - behavior? And what if we do discover these moral facts and they are so repugnant or detrimental to humanity that we wish not to abide them ourselves? — ToothyMaw

I think you are envisioning some sentient being here. I am not. There is nothing to suggest AI or AGI will be conscious. AGI will just have the computing capacity to far outperform any human. I am not assuming sentience on any level (that is the scary thing).

I have no answers, just see a major problem. I do not see many people talking about this directly either - which is equally as concerning. It is pretty much like handing over all warhead capabilities to a computer that has no moral reasoning and saying 'only fire nukes at hostile targets'.

The further worry here is everyone is racing to get to this AGI point because whoever gets their first will effectively have the monopoly on this .. then they will quickly be secondary to the very thing they have created. Do you see what I mean?

I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

Guess this is how things are now here.

Bye bye :)

Are some natural languages more logical than others though?

One of my biggest gripes with people discussing ethics/philosophy is that they believe ‘true’ is wholly applicable to pure abstract forms.

As I said with German do you think that is more logical?

Another matter I recall was when the European countries grouped together for political discourse Greek was given serious consideration as the Greek to mediate through as it was more suited to easy communication. They went for English simply because it was more universal not because it was the best suited.

Are the manner in which some languages are structured more ‘logical’ then? I would English is certainly not particularly ‘logical’ as it is backwards in terms of sentence structure and adjective compared to others for a start. Then there is the multiplicity of terms (small, little).

(I shouldn't say "better" -- it is politically and culturally unacceptable to say this). — L'éléphant

Why? I think more harm is caused if you pretend there is no difference, and act like languages are equal in every respect. That said, I would not as far as to say the differences are all that significant.

I recall Buckminster saying how we use up and down is kind of primitive now we know about gravity. He said we should really modernise and start saying into and out of (referring to gravitation fields). Just watching some weird TikTok person recently saying ‘like’ about 20 times in one minute got me thinking about the possible degradation of colloquial speech and whether they is anything to be overly concerned about. I find it amusing when people have no idea what acronyms mean sometimes. Blog is that a surprising amount of people do not know the origin of.

I think that because it was reported in the field by a linguist. Sicilians do not use future tense and are widely regarded as being short-sighted/fun-loving.

There are numerous instances in languages that show differences in cognitive function. In South Korean motherese focuses on prepositions where in practically every other culture nouns are the primary focus. This had an actual impact on perception and there is a measurable difference up until the age of 5-6.

German clearly impacts Germans too. There language is particularly literal and every european I spoke to living in Berlin remarked about how literal Germans were as the most significant cultural difference.

As to ‘better’ that is the open question.

Confusion about grammar? :D

Comedy thread now.

First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less. — Outlander

Well, no. If you lack use of tenses (like Sicilians) then you are less likely to plan ahead. This is advantageous in some ays but perhaps not in others.

It’s a crying shame that I would have to explain that differences necessitate different values to some extent even though the circumstances under which they are applied may make them better in one way and worse in another.

We are different. I am likely better in some and worse in others. In terms of language the use is to communicate and explore ideas. I would suggest that all languages offer something but some more so than others (and the linguist who did field research on the Sicilians was as intrigued as me).

Pretty much done here (not due to your post, just saw it).

I was asking for opinoins and gave examples. Anyway, I get the gist done here bye

You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

Np bye :)

You are aware that that English is a bastardised language?

I was suggesting that the eclectic nature of English (for reasons stated) helped it expand, yet I question if the ability to pull from its romance and germanic roots has perhaps become a hinderance to communication due to a plethora of terms.

But whether one is better than the other depends on one's values. — Judaka

Some values are better than others. Not sure how you could argue otherwise?

Perhaps English promotes individualism through the extensive use of individualistic pronouns. — Judaka

There is one example where English fell short. The terms Missus and Miss used for women was not as befitting as Italian or French, when a mature woman would be referred to respect with no real need to be married. Senora and Senorita are irrespective of marital status. That is what gave rise to the invention of Ms.

English became a global language because of the combined influence of two superpowers, the British Empire and the US, not because of its advantages, right? — Judaka

I would say mainly due to the British Empire first and foremost. I was more curious about how English may have helped in any slight way? Did the structure of the language contribute to invention and human thought in any way? Is it even possible to answer this question? If we can then what use could it be?

The dominant "Westen values" are shit. It's just tribalism. — Benkei

Great argument :D

I am saying there are clearly objective values to languages beyond mere convenience.

English has changed over the years for sure maybe due to the number of people who speak it. German has certain matter-of-fact characteristics to it, and various other languages have a narrower range in some areas.

I know people who are bilingual who state that sometimes it is easier to express/think in one language more than another depending on the situation. I think English is particularly unique in that it developed in certain directions due to Latin, Ancient Greek, French and influences from colonies too.

This range could be viewed as positive or negative thing. Which is it? I would say mostly positive at one point in history, but as time has passed it may have become a little unwieldy perhaps?

reposted. I added a bit more context and an example. Maybe it was viewed as a glib post? Either way if there is a problem with it let me know and I will edit.

I’ll just post it again I guess. Maybe a mistake somewhere?

not important. Autocorrect

You were the one buttering the colloquial term ‘change’ not me. Everything we know of remains similar enough to call it the same. Nothing remains the same for humans because everything is subject entropy.

There is no ethical dilemma then.

NO: one cannot torture a child nor kill a child even if it saves the entire human species. — Bob Ross

Someone would.

If that is the case then to say anything stays the same is a fallacy and it would also make the term is/change identical.

Same effectively means similar enough to be called the same. It is not some absolute term.

You are a social animal. There is no denying this.

It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. — javi2541997

Every single extent. Humans need humans as much as they need food or water. Just because we can learn to survive longer and longer without human interactions does not displace the fact that imagination/psychosis will substitute the sensations of social interactions. Writing is clearly one method of ‘replacing’ social interactions.

Surely we all know that the point at which the changes to the ship make it a different ship is not clearly defined. — Ludwig V

It is pretty clear. Piece by piece if every part is replaced it is still ‘the original’ as it is their ship. Someone collecting and reassembling the parts produce their own ship not someone else’s ‘original’ ship.

Words can sometimes trick the mind.

I was commenting on that particular sentiment because when we write or speak it is undoubtedly done within a communal framework. What is said can be heard or read by anyone, just as anything we think is also partly imbued with the community held in mind.

We cannot act outside of human social interactions. On a superficial level we can state that we do not write something for anyone but by stating so we do actually appreciate that we usually do and therefore cannot escape that expressing anything is a reaching-out into the world not some isolated incident.

See what I mean?

It is a gradable antonym at best.

What evidence do you base this opinion on?

Just curious. It helps to make your point clear so others can understand why you think what you think.