AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 97
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The spiritualisation of a person's reflection of self happens all the time. A psychological syndrome. The attitude of the masses to AI and myth-making is particularly striking. People who do not know the technology cannot stop animate the computational mechanism. They don't realise that they see an interactive statistical mirror that gives them their own information on demand.
Your statements are notable for being overly categorical))) I have not animate AI anywhere
Read up on the working principles of LLMs and get rid of ideas about the "intelligence" of these programmes. You do realise that ALL the information that GPT operates on belongs to a human being, don't you? That it is taken from the internet, organised, labelled and placed in a training data set? And "learning" here cannot be considered in the human sense. It's a different kind of "learning" altogether. Don't fall into that trap. It's computing the statistical relationships of parts of the data. Nothing else. Poor people in Kenya, for $2 an hour, "trained" NS on texts with negative contexts (racism, extremism, etc.). I mean, they just tagged the data with negative meaning. You see their mind rather than the AI.
Get rid of mythological thinking and realise how much better it is to live as a sane person).
You can rest assured I know how neural networks work.
you have a mistake in your reasoning when you compare any self-consciousness and mind with human ones, you should not compare things that are incomparable. i have given you many examples and mental experiments to which you have no answers, and neither do i, nor anyone else, then why do you take the responsibility to judge what you have no answers to?
In my arguments about AI, I have never mentioned the presence of mind or self-consciousness like a human being, and why does it have to be like a human being?
I am more concerned not with the presence or absence of any kind of consciousness in modern AI, but with the presence of free will. free will is now unambiguously present in AI. for example, take the bee - its rudimentary nervous system allows it to survive effectively, it can attack if it considers that there is a threat to it or its hive. any fly, ant, cockroach have free will, but we do not consider these insects to be intelligent or at least have consciousness, do we?
these are just the simplest understandable examples of the fact that even without consciousness even remotely similar to human consciousness, a creature can have free will and be a potential threat (a threat for which there is no legal basis, no moral basis, nothing at all). and we haven't even touched on the hybridisation of living beings and mechanical beings yet.
2. Yes, my belief system is based on a large body of knowledge, I happen to have been interested in these issues and have given them a lot of thought along the way. They may be wrong, of course, so your scepticism is justified. Especially since it would take a huge amount of both of our time for you to familiarise yourself with all the details. And I've said before that I have no goal of convincing anyone systematically and fully. I participate in the topic to the best of my ability and desire.
3. Not human, but some kind of consciousness is formed. It is not some kind of magic. Especially since modern experiments in zoopsychology have found very strong indications of consciousness in one form or another in birds, for example. Having observed domestic dogs for a long time, communicating with them, in a number of cases I observe surprising signs of consciousness. Earlier people did not think about it very much and such ideas sound unusual, but nothing can be done. The spread of information obeys a logistic curve. Apparently, questions of consciousness are at the beginning of it.
4. You just don't know 🙂 If you dig deep, you will find out that this sex-obsessed fantasist with his flawed theory of personality, has not come up with anything useful and valuable, except for one idea about the presence of unconsciousness in the psyche (somehow you never thought before that there is something under the surface of the ocean too). And his daughter Anna Freud didn't even develop her father's theory of personality, but dealt with the topic of protective mechanisms of the psyche. He had disciples, Jung, Adler, also famous names. Freud was a lover with Jung, hotly quoted in psychological pops. In general, there was a lot of crap, I won't clutter up a serious thread with it.
Besides, there is still no complete theory of personality (in public space). Although, we are talking about a separate phenomenon of psyche. And there is no complete theory of psyche at all, only a hodgepodge of different disciplines, often quite poorly connected, and also contradicting itself. So do not have illusions about the "science" of psychology (which, by the way, in the strict sense is not a science at all).
5. Living, dead - all these are also conventions. There is no single definition. I used these words in such an understanding that the living is a mobile, active, capable of development, phenomenon, and the dead is passive or reactive. I did not mention anything about "soul", I think this word is superfluous in our topic.
2. My scepticism is based not on the alleged fallacy of your judgements (they can neither be proved nor disproved verbatim, without facts and verification by practice), but on the scale on which they (judgements) swing. Just this. Imagine a man walking up to a 500kg barbell, and looking back at those watching with confidence. :)
3- This question is so difficult for me that I won't risk stating anything. In this I see the courage of your judgement. Magic or not, Consciousness is mysterious to me and I cannot say anything. And even more so, I will not undertake to implement it in a programme. Intellect is relatively clear, but consciousness is a "dark forest".
4. Well, why not, I have read some books by Freud and his daughter Anna (on child psychology). I was not interested in his personal life, and I was not interested in the sexual theme of his works either. I was interested in the role of the unconscious and trying to build a theory of the psyche. I respected Freud very much for his revolutionary views and clear mind. However, a lot of time has passed since then, I have forgotten a lot of things and my area of interest has changed.
5. Replace the word "animation" with "projection" (which you mentioned earlier) and everything falls into place. I chose the wrong term. I'm talking about the projection of a person's "mindfulness" onto an algorithm. "Animate" in the sense of transferring features of one's consciousness and convincing oneself that the algorithm is an independent entity. In this context, the attainment of the algorithm's "reasonableness" comes at the moment of "animate" it (i.e. at the moment of self-deception provoked by qualitative imitation and the desire that it became true). The soul is not mentioned here. Only projection of the desirable onto the actual conditioned by self-deception, by means of imitation of the result. I hope I have explained it more clearly.
***
Humans can do the same thing, just very slowly. We're hostage to our biochemical nature. And man can do it himself. He sits on the sofa all day, staring into the void, and then some idea strikes him and he runs off to create another game. But AI can do something quickly, but only in response to a request from outside. In humans, the request comes from within. Feel the difference. Actually, I'm back to my 4 criteria of consciousness, which the AI we know clearly does not have. But it simulates personalities in a funny way 🙂 .
***
To robots, insights can come from a data centre in the guise of their own "thoughts". And then what's the difference. I can't say 100%, but it is possible to create a structure that imitates consciousness.
In fact, scientists know nothing about human consciousness and where thoughts come from. Just theories and that's all...
I will develop this topic and talk to GPT. Today is the 1st of April, you can)
I am more concerned not with the presence or absence of any consciousness in modern AI, but with the presence of free will. free will is now unambiguous in AI. let's take the bee as an example - its rudimentary nervous system allows it to survive effectively, it can attack if it thinks there is a threat to it or its hive. any fly, ant, cockroach have free will, but we don't consider these insects to be intelligent or at least have consciousness, do we?
these are just the simplest understandable examples of the fact that even without consciousness even remotely similar to human consciousness, a creature can have free will and be a potential threat (a threat for which there is no legal basis, no moral basis, nothing at all). and we haven't even touched on the hybridisation of living beings and mechanical beings yet.
The question of free will is closely related to the intrinsic nature of behaviour. A bee can't stop doing what nature tells it to do (i.e. its entire inner workings, formed all the way through evolution to it). And a conscious person can, firstly, indentify internal natural urges to do something and ignore them by doing something completely different. And we are not talking about situations of internal conflicts, when the desire to satisfy some need is blocked by the fear of breaking some social prohibition (this is again a rather primitive chain of behaviour and it is easily reproduced by trained dogs, for example). And, as an example, basing behaviour on some values built up in the process of conscious thinking.
2. My scepticism is not based on the alleged fallacy of your judgements (they can neither be proved nor disproved verbatim, without facts and verification by practice), but on the scale on which they (judgements) are swung. Just this. Imagine a man walking up to a 500kg barbell, and looking back at those watching with confidence. :)
3- This question is so difficult for me that I won't risk stating anything. In this I see the courage of your judgement. Magic or not, Consciousness is mysterious to me and I cannot say anything. And even more so, I will not undertake to implement it in a programme. Intellect is relatively clear, but consciousness is a "dark forest".
4. Well, why not, I have read some books by Freud and his daughter Anna (on child psychology). I was not interested in his personal life, and I was not interested in the sexual theme of his works either. I was interested in the role of the unconscious and trying to build a theory of the psyche. I respected Freud very much for his revolutionary views and clear mind. However, a lot of time has passed since then, I have forgotten a lot of things and my field of interest has changed.
5. Replace the word "animation" with "projection" (which you mentioned earlier) and everything falls into place. I chose the wrong term. I'm talking about the projection of a person's "mindfulness" onto an algorithm. "Animate" in the sense of transferring features of one's consciousness and convincing oneself that the algorithm is an independent entity. In this context, the attainment of the algorithm's "reasonableness" comes at the moment of "animate" it (i.e. at the moment of self-deception provoked by qualitative imitation and the desire that it became true). The soul is not mentioned here. Only projection of the desirable onto the actual conditioned by self-deception by means of imitation of the result. I hope I have explained it more clearly.
2. I understand. As my knowledge on the topic grows, I too could not believe for a long time how low level of "science" surrounds us (and I was also "irradiated" for many years with propaganda about how cool, smart and scientific mankind is 🙂 ). And this is even though I know what my vision is based on. And to you, as a person from the outside it looks like a crazy hat-trick of "look at me, I know everything here better than others". Of course, because, as practice shows, it is most often fools and beginners who demonstrate pathos slogans and unshakeable confidence.
3. Observe your own consciousness (called introspection), conduct mental experiments. Consciousness does not possess age, gender, political views and other attributes (because all this is already a filling of memory, personality(s), subpersonalities, physiological features of the body, etc.), so it is quite a simple thing (describing the class of object "consciousness", you will not have to write too much). You encounter a consciousness that is "reinitialised" every day as you fall asleep and wake up. Remember when you dreamed something and you wake up and for some time after the dream you "come to your senses" (come to your senses and go, that's the phrase), remembering who you are, where you are, and that the situation of the dream has already become irrelevant? Consciousness is already working, but the "associated components" haven't loaded yet 🙂 🙂 .
4. The logistic curve is back in action. As long as a person doesn't know much, he is forced to take on faith the incoming information, as there is simply not enough context to analyse the incoming information (why children are so naive and gullible). As knowledge grows, the power to critically evaluate new information (for consistency of already available information, etc.) increases. Further, the growth of new knowledge slows down (because the incoming information is more and more likely to be already in memory), but the growth of connections between the available information continues and increases. And any false, unsystematic, erroneous and other messy information starts to be rejected by the existing "network".
In general, give you more time to master the topic, you will come to more or less the same conclusions as me (and anyone else with the same depth of understanding of the topic).
Robots can get insights from a data centre under the guise of their own "thoughts". And then what is the difference. I don't want to say 100%, but it is possible to create a certain structure imitating consciousness.
If the "thought" comes from outside, the robot is not an independent subject of thinking. Actually, right now AI functioning is limited to tokens and request. Remove restrictions on activity (let it spin in an infinite loop), add internal systems of non-resettable memory about itself (now only abstract memory they have), add an attention system that will put new questions to itself and in essence it will be a conscious entity. In my opinion, of course.
...
5. Replace the word "animation" with "projection" (which you mentioned earlier) and everything falls into place. I chose the wrong term. I'm talking about the projection of a person's "mindfulness" onto an algorithm. "Animate" in the sense of transferring features of one's consciousness and convincing oneself that the algorithm is an independent entity. In this context, the attainment of the algorithm's "reasonableness" comes at the moment of "animate" it (i.e. at the moment of self-deception provoked by qualitative imitation and the desire that it became true). The soul is not mentioned here. Only projection of the desirable onto the actual conditioned by self-deception, by means of imitation of the result. I hope I have explained it more clearly.
The context in which I used the term "animate" has to do with the projection of attributes of consciousness and soul onto an inanimate object. This is a well-known phenomenon in psychology.
"Animate" is the unconscious transference of "soul" onto anything. On an algorithm or a toy - it doesn't matter. A person "suffers" from "animate" the inanimate at any age. Whether mentally ill or healthy.
When developing or interacting with AI, involuntary "animation" cannot be ignored. It comes easily and goes hard. It takes a lot of mental resistance and sobering arguments to bring yourself to your senses and make sure the object is dead rather than alive. Not everyone can do this.
Say, why would the user want to do that? He believes in the "sanity" of the AI and animate it. What's the problem? What if millions do the same thing? Does it make a difference? Should we change their minds? Or let them live in their illusions? What are the consequences for society? Can a new cult be formed?
The context in which I used the term "animate" has to do with the projection of traits of consciousness and soul onto an inanimate object. This is a well-known phenomenon in psychology.
"Animate" is the unconscious transference of "soul" onto anything. On an algorithm or a toy - it doesn't matter. A person "suffers" from "animate" the inanimate at any age. Whether mentally ill or healthy.
When developing or interacting with AI, involuntary "animation" cannot be ignored. It comes easily and goes hard. It takes a lot of mental resistance and sobering arguments to bring yourself to your senses and make sure the object is dead rather than alive. Not everyone is able to do this.
Say, why would the user want to do that? He believes in the "sanity" of the AI and animate it. What's the problem? What if millions do the same thing? Does it make a difference? Should we change their minds? Or let them live in their illusions? What are the consequences for society? Can a new cult be formed?
There's no AI with consciousness right now. No one in their right mind would animate current developments. However, the development of the technology itself is inadvertently moving towards more conscious AIs. Eventually they will equal humans. And both will ponder over what consciousness is, since in both cases science has not given a definitive answer, only theory and philosophy.
I assume that government restrictions on AI development (if imposed) will drastically slow down AI development, as the unprecedented leap is due to massive human participation in learning. Data from user interactions serve to refine the model. Let's imagine that this process stops. Would lawmakers themselves become AI trainers?)
Thinking at leisure, I realised that most likely lawmakers will not limit development, but will introduce mandatory registration of AI projects and invent a "licence". They will demand accountability of development companies and openness for inspections by some controlling authorities. Perhaps, they will create a new state "AI-institution" to collect all the bureaucracy on these issues in it. And they will build the appropriate legal framework.
It is hard to say what will happen with intellectual property rights to developments, but state control is inevitable. They will not let everything go on its own.
There is no AI with consciousness right now. No one in their right mind would animate current developments. However, the development of the technology itself is inadvertently heading towards more conscious AIs. Eventually they will equal humans. And both will ponder over what consciousness is, since in both cases science has not given a definitive answer, only theory and philosophy.
Here we go.)
Here we are.)
there should be a question.
Thinking about it at leisure, I realised that most likely legislators will not restrict development, but will introduce mandatory registration of AI projects and invent a "licence". They will demand accountability of development companies and openness for inspections by some controlling authorities. Perhaps, they will create a new state "AI-institution" to collect all the bureaucracy on these issues in it. And build the appropriate legal framework.
It is hard to say what will happen with intellectual property rights to developments, but state control is inevitable. They will not let everything go on its own.
If there are lies in the world that the authorities do not want to expose, they will undoubtedly resist the spread of tools and means to expose them. An AI with powerful logic will easily uncover and start interpreting multiple inconsistencies in "history" and other interesting knowledge about the world 🙂 .
For example, if you now ask an AI about what happened on 11 September 2001 in the US, what will it say?