I think you believe you may have some interesting things to say even though your ideas are probably not as enlightened as you think they are.

If you are an actual AI programmer it will certainly be interest to see what you have to say in that department.

probably not as enlightened as you think they are — I like sushi

Could you please contribute to the topic instead of just venting your opinions about what you think I think of my ideas? If you are interested in more, search online for Babelspeak. Currently there is not much but I am working on it.

We don't know how humans think. Does your AI have the ability to think?

The philosophical question I am struggling with is this: I believe the conceptual reality of this AI will be completely different from ours. Is there something we can say about it? Maybe it will be closer to fundamental reality? What do you think? — Carlo Roosen

How can AI have a concept of reality? If you can answer that then this might make more sense.

AI internally models stuff it interacts with.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzGDwpRBx6TEcdeA5/a-chess-gpt-linear-emergent-world-representation

We don't know how humans think. Does your AI have the ability to think? — MoK

You are absolutely right, we don't know how we think. We have two perspectives on the matter, one is our own experience of thinking, the other is our neurological knowledge. However, we do not understand the relation between those two. We call it "emergent" but that is another word for "too complex to understand".

Yet something crazy happens at the moment. Neural nets were proposed around 1960, if I am correct. By tinkering, 60 years later, we have ChatGPT. And even while we still don't understand how it works, there are similarities between ChatGPT and our brain processes. That is kind of magic.

What I plan to do is based on observing my own thought processes. I will try to build the architecture that will enable the processes that I am aware of. Language is a large part of that idea. So yes, I believe one day my AI has the ability to think. Hoping for another piece of magic.

This might raise the question of consciousness. But in order not to complicate the discussion, I would like to save that topic for a later post.

For me a proof of thinking would be, you give it a complicated question 'A' and it has no answer. Then some other day you give it a piece of seemingly unrelated information 'B'. Then a day after that, it says "He, do you remember you asked about 'A'? Now yesterday you talked about 'B', and maybe there is an answer here." Then it explains you in all detail a perfect answer.

That is what I am trying to achieve with Babelspeak, a method to store, retrieve and combine internalized abstractions.

How can AI have a concept of reality? If you can answer that then this might make more sense. — I like sushi

Maybe my above answer to MoK answers your question too?

My was AI doesn't think. Concepts are associated with thinking.

Either way, I do not see how this reveals the questions that came after it. If you can explain.

I can run with the hypothetical that "AI" will just become "I". The question about how this forms will be shaped by input/output. If in 'cyberspace' then there could be something we may call akin to 'consciousness' but certainly nothing like human consciousness ... it may even be faulty to call it 'conscious' at all in anyway we appreciate the term.

So, no. This will not be 'closer to reality' as reality is for us what it is just as it is what it is for other conscious sentient creatures. A shared world makes the reality shared. If AI can map reality it is mapping reality not knowing it.

I have a feeling you mean more than this so you'll likely have to explain further what your point is?

Yes, I definitely mean more than this. What I am trying to do is to break the topic up in different chunks. If you like the overall topic and want to contribute - which it seems you are - then I'll invite you to also read my other post about fundamental reality. This will likely help to get the full scope of what I am working on.

My was AI doesn't think. Concepts are associated with thinking.

Either way, I do not see how this reveals the questions that came after it. If you can explain. — I like sushi

You specifically asked "How can AI have a concept of reality?"

I have shown pretty solid evidence that AI internally models the stuff it interacts with (and thus, if it interacts with reality, it will - or at least in principle can - have an internal model of that reality). To me, it seems fairly self-evident how that's relevant to the question you asked. An internal model of reality, to me, seems like what someone might mean when they say 'a concept of reality'.

Maybe you are better equipped to answer the follow-up questions posed:

Is there something we can say about it? Maybe it will be closer to fundamental reality? — Carlo Roosen

?

I think will be just a different model of reality from our own, not necessarily closer, not necessarily more correct (though possibly more correct, and possibly better at predicting certain things - that's the measure of any model, right? predictive success). It will have its own abstractions, it will slice reality up differently to how we do, but maybe similar in some important ways.

But there's really no telling until it actually starts being built and learning things. We already know that neural nets have their own ideas about things that are similar to ours in some ways but different in some surprising ways. I expect that to be the same with this guys project, if this guys project even ever gets working.

Now think of such a new AI running on your phone. — Carlo Roosen

Have you seen Google's new AI-summarized search results? It takes forever. My browser delays for five or ten seconds before putting up a result. It's annoying, and the results aren't any better than what I'd get if I just clicked the top link anyway. Tonight I figured out how to turn it off (someone published a Chrome extension for that purpose) and now my web searches are back to the way they were before, serving up search results instantly. I noticed the improvement right away and I have no desire to switch back. They're like everything else AI does ... even when it's correct and useful, it's like swimming in lukewarm oatmeal. There's just something off about it.

I have a feeling the day after you release your AI, someone will release an extension to turn it off. People find this stuff annoying.

Do you often forget your keys when you leave the house? Doesn't the act of locking the door behind you serve as a reminder? Is that the best use case you can think of to motivate my interest? If you were presenting this to an investor, what would be your elevator pitch? As it stands, you haven't piqued my interest. You say, "... the AI has completely different inputs than us humans," but you gave no examples. I already have access to the Internet, and my phone's sensors don't sense anything my own senses already do. Unless you give it LIDAR like an autonomous vehicle, or an infrared sensor, or a built-in CO2 detector. It's straightforward to hook up all kinds of lab sensors to smartphones. That doesn't strike me as much of a breakthrough.

It could be that you have something more impressive than you described. But remember, you get 30 seconds for an elevator pitch. You didn't motivate me.

tl;dr: I see nothing revolutionary about hooking up lab sensors to an AI. I'm sure people are already doing it. Autonomous vehicles sound like the closest thing to what you're describing. They're equipped with sensors humans don't have.

Autonomous vehicles sound like the closest thing to what you're describing. They're equipped with sensors humans don't have. — fishfry

At the moment, of course, autonomous vehicles aren't autonomous. Indeed, it's very expensive to fund the support staff. As a prof commented in this NY Times article:

“It may be cheaper just to pay a driver to sit in the car and drive it,” said Thomas W. Malone, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Collective Intelligence. — prof

The philosophical question I am struggling with is this: I believe the conceptual reality of this AI will be completely different from ours. Is there something we can say about it? Maybe it will be closer to fundamental reality? What do you think? — Carlo Roosen

How would you tell if one conceptual reality is different from another in the first place? You seem to allow it to admit of degrees ("completely"), so similar conceptual realities ought be able to be distinguished.

The idea is that instead of a single highway of information flow, there is a whole traffic square where information can go all kinds of directions before it generates output. — Carlo Roosen

Interesting. Could you elaborate on this a bit more please? What differentiates your idea from existing systems that take into account a wealth of sensory information constantly such as self-driving vehicle systems or current AI that already cross checks "multiple sources" (a whole traffic square) before converging into a single "highway" (end user output)?

I will, but later. Or google "Babelspeak". There is not much there, but I'll update it.

Now think of such a new AI running on your phone. It continually registers its environment and acts on it when needed — Carlo Roosen

The average cell phone battery has a capacity of 10 Watt-hours. A single query to ChatGPT uses 2.9 Watt-hours.

How soon do you expect the hardware technology, needed to support your project, to be available? And why do you think that expectation is realistic?

One day, we’ll invent some superpower, try it out and our planet explodes.

I call it the theory of BOOM.

:rofl:

Haha, you are ahead of what is coming. Image (c) Carlo Roosen