peterflys

peterflys t1_jeewumj wrote

Another way to look at it: Can a language model effectively conduct experiments within an "artificial environment"? By that I mean, can it actually simulate an environment such that it can run physics experiments (and, related, chemistry and biology experiments)?

I'm not so sure that it can using language alone, though it might be able to train itself to? Would love to hear if anyone else in the community knows. I think the AI needs to be able to effectively simulate other senses in order to do create science experiments. I do think that language, or more generally, the ability to communicate, is an important part of cognition and I think that the transformer-based LLMs that have been created so far are an incredible step in the right direction. But to get to an AGI, I think we need more. We need AI to be able to effectively conduct experiments in order to figure out the way the world and everything else operates. To be able to come up with and then test different theorems of physics. Different chemical properties.

We've seen articles (here and here and here for example) that show promise with regard to testing proteins. So perhaps these are examples of AI moving in the right direction to simulate reality so that we can build out these properties?

3

peterflys t1_jeabr2h wrote

There are also far too many national security and, unfortunately, global political consequences to stopping or pausing. Politicians and other heads of state know that the stakes are too high.

1

peterflys t1_jdxv53u wrote

I know this comment isn’t exactly on point with the tweet, but maybe the reason for the criticism of “I’ll believe AI is real when…” is to actually say “I’ll believe AI is actually helpful when…” meaning when AI will be proliferated and usher in a post scarcity economy will we accept that it exists? In other words it has to be life changing-ly useful to be talk to the beholder? It has to actually change our lives (largely for the better) in order to justify our acceptance of its existence?

1

peterflys t1_j7kw4xx wrote

That could be true, but you could also end up in a situation where the hardware running the primary sim continues to get upgraded and expanded, which increases its capacity to hold more information (that is, the society—and its own simulations—that its simulating). Computation of These should get cheaper and cheaper too. Just another thought.

2

peterflys t1_j3pduu7 wrote

But you do bring up a good point about #3 - seems like there is at least some speculation that some humans will choose not to merge and continue living in whatever the equivalent of a future luddite community would be. What will happen to them? Might be a topic for a different thread, but I know a lot of people speculate that humans could end up like zoo animals in these situations.

1

peterflys t1_j2i559r wrote

I totally agree. And That’s the goal right? I mean, I think that’s the fantasy that we want on this Sub. And I think that’s what we as a society should try to work toward and to attain. We need to create artificial intelligence that can quickly and correctly determine how our brains work and how to wire them up to the internet (or whatever a pre-singularity internet equivalent is) while also making technology powerful enough to create these digital paradises. Then we merge. And then the singularity happens.

My question is: will be be able to do all of this by 2045? I certainly hope so.

1

peterflys t1_ishh9cv wrote

I read Kurzweil’s books circa 2010 and started lurking around Reddit and elsewhere to get a better understanding of community feelings toward exponential growth of emerging tech. But I actually just joined this Sub today! The thought of curing most biological diseases (via gene therapies or nanobots) is just seems so enticing, intoxicating, that I try to follow as much as I can.

1