Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6cgde3 wrote

Reply to comment by Nameless1995 in God Is No Longer Dead! (A Kritik of AI & Man) by No_Maintenance_569

>I don't have one.

But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?

>What is your "God"?

It is not "my God". "God" in this instance would be, I want either Google Lambda or another currently non publicly available AI. I think ChatGPT and the like are child's play compared to what actually exists currently in the world.

> which isn't capable of solving LogiQA questions and engage in advanced metalogical discussions and such

Yes, ChatGPT cannot do those things.

1

Nameless1995 t1_j6chhfw wrote

> But mine is an idiosyncratic stretch, why?

"What I mean by your definition being idiosyncratic is that it doesn't really even come close to the cluster of definitions of God that has been made. It's really a "cope-version" of God."

Either way I don't care if you go on to do define God. You do you. But once other's see that you are just arbitrarily defining God in a way as you life, they would be also left unimpressed. Of course you can live your life without trying to impress anyone about your arguments.

> Google Lambda

It's still Transformer trained in big data. Just differences in details here and there. The mechanism is public in a paper.

Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert". There is no sense to call it God, or treat it as infallible. No matter how good in logic it becomes, it cannot overcome GIGO without some magickal access to all true data as input.

2

No_Maintenance_569 OP t1_j6ci6f3 wrote

What is my definition of "God" in your own words?

>Even if AI becomes super good in the future at best it will be something like a "super expert"

This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.

1

Nameless1995 t1_j6ciac0 wrote

> This hubris is why I think we're straight up fucked over all of this lol. People, really, really, really, don't want to accept the argument that it is even in the realm of possibility that something can exist in the universe that is smarter than them. Dogmatic beliefs, man. Helluva drug.

But "super expert" would be smarter than us (or most of us). I don't deny super intelligence, but I don't see the point of calling it God or even worship it as near infallible.

2