Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dreamedio t1_ir8xssd wrote

Reply to comment by Smoke-away in The last few weeks have been truly jaw dropping. by Particular_Leader_16

Wdym by surprise? You think AI researchers don’t know what they are doing? Plus I feel like you think when AGI or ASI is developed everything is gonna change in the blink of an eye….it’s pure hopium nothing could happen

−4

Wassux t1_ir9f529 wrote

At some point AI will suddenly be able to take over. And then nobody knows what is happening as we won't have anything to do with it

7

matt_flux t1_ir9sr1f wrote

Take over what?

3

Wassux t1_ir9t9g1 wrote

Anything you can imagine

3

matt_flux t1_ir9telz wrote

Making your food? Collecting your bins? I don’t get it

0

DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_ir9yn51 wrote

ikr.

your user name is fabulous btw.

i mean worse case a sentient ai could control like water and power grids. best case they optimize stuff, a la the TV show Silicon Valley.

most accounts on this sub are bots and high school kids. they just typing stuff. they dont know know from numpy.

3

matt_flux t1_ira08t0 wrote

Thanks mate! I just liked the sound of it.

Yeah, the expansion of IoT really concerns me. If I had it my way we would actually decouple important infrastructure from networks completely.

I dunno; people here seem smart, but in terms of predictions they are all vague, unfalsifiable, and dare I say idealistic

2

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_ira2lv7 wrote

Redditors aren't required to be genius level professors. It's a social media platform. Expectations should be low, but that doesn't mean we discount everything being discussed or the people discussing them.

The context of "taking over everything" may be clear to the redditor and may be a rational conclusion based on their available knowledge.
I do think it's important to discuss what is meant without discouraging them from being involved in that discussion through passive aggressive remarks or slights to their intelligence.

That being said I think they probably meant through a combination of integral human systems AGI could replace the need for human interaction at various levels. To them that might mean government, enterprise, technology innovation, and utilities.

Personally I don't see it as being so straightforward as one AGI to rule them all, but in certain respects over the next few decades we could see industry adopting stronger AGI influence and control within various sectors.
There will be a lot of nuance and this is what some people may not recognize, thereby assuming it's a binary outcome.

0

matt_flux t1_ira3821 wrote

I didn’t make any remarks like that.

In my experience it takes way less effort/cost for a human to improve a business process, or any process really, than to calibrate an AI for the problem and collect enough data etc.

I just want some concrete predictions about what AI will “take over”.

2

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_ira5vqw wrote

I'm not targeting anyone, just the overall dialogue between you two held slightly condescending context with regard to redditors intelligence.

I'm sure you're familiar with the amount of AI out in the world and it's different forms and uses under the development of different sectors and entities.
I think it would be virtually impossible to offer any concrete predictions about what exactly AI will "take over".

Your comment regarding business use of AI and its efficiency is fairly reductionist though. It assumes that the goal of a company is linear and that it will have to make a binary choice between human or AI influence.
Generally there is a slow integration of AI input as industry models for software and calculation. It's not one or the other, it's a combination of the two to start and over time you tend to see a gradual increase in use of the AI model in those specific use cases.

1

matt_flux t1_ira6wzs wrote

So you admit it’s just speculation?

People here aren’t presenting it as speculation, but are also unable to give specific predictions.

I’ve seen billions poured into AI analysis of big data, for 0 returns

1

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_iracj87 wrote

I didn't say it wasn't speculation, but that was never the point.

You're mentioning big data without considering the simple to moderate AI tasks which have been operating at different levels in different sectors for years. Not in terms of "return" but in efficient data management, calculation, logistics, and storage.

Those are basic automated operations that are barely considered AI but still a function of business in day to day management.
But thats enterprise, we aren't even talking about sectors like entertainment and content creation which utilize AI far more readily. We see a lot of AI going into systems that render and utilize recognition patterns like indeep fake and rotoscoping.

Your perception of AI integration equaling a 0 return omits an entire world of operation and doesn't consider future integration. As I said, reductionist.

1

matt_flux t1_iraemvd wrote

Those things would certainly deliver a return, but at the moment are algorithms programmed by humans. So what, in practical terms, will AI “take over” exactly?

1

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_irajrw3 wrote

In context to what the redditor was talking about, I'm not sure. I'm assuming they may be basing their perspectives on pop culture concepts like Skynet.

I don't think one AGI will take over "everything", but I do think various versions of AGI will become responsible for more automated system throughout different sectors. It won't be a consistent one size fits all as some business and industry will adopt different approaches and lean into it more than others.

In fact I think we'll see an oversaturation of AGI being haphazardly applied or thrown at the wall to see what sticks.
It wouldn't be until an ASI emerges that it's "possible" for unification to occur at some level.

Until that point though I personally do not see it "taking over". But thats just me.

1

matt_flux t1_irak5er wrote

Fair enough, I share the same view. Often manual(?) setting up of automation is more practical than AI though.

1

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_irando4 wrote

We automate most systems currently through manual setup so I can only assume this will continue on until AI has developed enough to self program, at least at limited scale.

1

matt_flux t1_irat0b5 wrote

Pure speculation. How would the AI know if it made an improvement to, or worsened its code? Human reports? If that’s the case it will perform no better than humans do.

1

3Quondam6extanT9 t1_iravwfo wrote

You're right, it is speculation, and initially it would likely be no better than human influence.

However limited improvement itself should be able to be written into code that at the very least is given the parameters to analyze and choose between the better options.

The AI that goes into deep faking, image generation, and now video generation is essentially taking different variables and applying them to the outcome through a set of instructions.

So it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility to program a system that can choose between fewer options with a given understanding that each variable outcome has with it an improvement of some sort.

That improvement could alter the speed at which its calculating projections or increasing it's database.

Call it handholding self-improvement to begin. I would like to think over time one could "speculate" that an increasingly complex system is capable of these very limited conditions.

0

DataRikerGeordiTroi t1_ira5plv wrote

Literally no one said that.

I like yr exegesis tho.

Reminder that 50% of all social media is bots.

1

Wassux t1_irqy7fo wrote

Ofcourse I know what numpy is, use it all the time for writing code in python. Especially for arrays to model AI algorithms to.

2

Wassux t1_irqyi7c wrote

What do you not understand about anything? As predictions are right now, AI will be capable of anything humans can do, in another couple years more than we can even think of.

AI has always been an endgame technology, it most likely will be the last thing humans work on.

1

matt_flux t1_irqzrbi wrote

Do you have any evidence for the prediction that AI will make you food?

1

Wassux t1_irr2bl2 wrote

Predictions can never have evidence, otherwise they wouldn't be evidence.

But it's completely logical, why would they do anything in existence but not make your food?

Let me repeat they'll be better than humans at literally everything.

1

matt_flux t1_irr2mff wrote

The entire point of science is predictability. Perhaps you meant to say guess rather than prediction?

1

Wassux t1_irr3mod wrote

No I meant perfect what I said. And it is predictable, if you can't see that, ask me questions I can answer so I can help you.

Maybe I should add I'm a major in Applied Physics with a minor in electrical engineering, and am now following a masters in AI and engineering systems. Hope that gives you a little credibility to what I'm saying.

0

dreamedio t1_ir9f6ee wrote

According to who? You?

−9

Wassux t1_ir9jcxx wrote

What am I supposed to do with this comment? I'm not looking to have a fight. If you have a question not aimed at a fight, I'd love to answer it.

7

fatalcharm t1_ir9lx0f wrote

That’s exactly what “the singularity” event is about, and why this sub exists. The Singularity event is when AI takes over its own evolution, and at that point we have no idea what is going to happen.

It’s a widely accepted theory of AI, I don’t know who the original person who came up with that theory is, but it’s out there now and the one that we are going with.

3