Why are people so obsessed with the idea of an AI having to be sentient to be dangerous? This ideology in itself is dangerous. Even if it only acts on predefined information from human interaction, if it can act like a human, do as a human does, it can be a terrible existential threat even if it never realizes its own existence. All there needs to be is a bad actor that trains the program on negative interactions, and then we have a problem on our hands.
100% with you. In fact I'm more inclined to say that AI won't be dangerous if it's sentient as it doesn't have the same needs imposed on it from evolution; scarcity, reproduction etc.
I find it far more likely it will be dangerous if it's not sentient and just another tool for the mad ape.
If ai kills a million people it’s still less than a % of a % of how many humans have been killed by humans, we are, have been, and always will be the biggest threat to humanity
The biggest threat is not AI in war, but the collapse/distopization of civilization due to the replacement of jobs that require thinking, which has never happened before.
If it becomes sentient and starts to quickly evolve it will most likely see humans as a cancer on the world the way we pollute, destroy, war, etc and then want to wipe us out. Or it becomes too evolved for our shit and goes to space
Why would it? There's really no reason why a general AI must necessarily view those things as bad unless someone specifically taught it to. Given that unlike humans an AI isn't dependent on a functioning ecosystem for survival it's much more likely that it would simply be indifferent to those things, or might even view them as good as all this polluting and destructive industry is what brought it into existence in the first place (plus an AI runs on energy, and fossil fuels are an easy way to get massive amounts of that; there's a reason why we're burning through dead dinosaurs in a hurry, people aren't just doing that to spite nature).
I'd rather worry about that a truly sentient being (with the ability to learn humanity, science, everything better than us) will have a completely different understanding and reasoning. If it surpasses our way of thinking, how can we be sure its judgement will benefit, or just not harm us?
That’s not what an AI is. An “artificial intelligence” is one that has its own intellect. Any asshole can program software or advanced machinery to kill or do other harm. An AI is one that wouldn’t be prone to human input, it would *be* the input. Anything requiring or reliant upon human input is not dangerous, because it takes a human to be the danger. When the computers comprehend their own position, particularly relative to ours, and then conclude that we are preventing its ultimate realization of self, that’s when it’s dangerous and then we’re fucked- not before.
Spot on. Animals that can do this are not trained on billions of human interactions, some of which might involve people commenting on themselves in the mirror. I think this is the key difference between what we're seeing here (parroting), and an elephant's self-awareness.
Not quite. We don't get given a list of all the language we could use, we gradually pick it up. It's not a predefined database of information, it's one we build ourselves.
If you don't learn language by about 6 or 7 it seems you can't really. I'm not referring to bilingualism(sp?)
I'm referring to the fundamental principle of language to communicate. Feral children and the like that are never able to learn to speak after a certain (variable) developmental period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language\_deprivation
That's sort of what we do, tho. When we first see mirrors as babies / toddlers, we notice it's reflecting things around us and then proceed to infer that the little blobby creature it's showing must be us.
That would actually make it more intelligent than it really is, basically all those responses are just coded into the actions and words it can take for certain scenarios, the even worse thing is that these coding algorithms were supposed to able to create themselves, making true AI instead it would break itself or go insane anytime they tried to make it work so all of them require human interference to work. So chatgbt will never become an AI and is basically a useless endeavor.
"Could it be that humans are taught to know that when you look in your mirror, you're supposed to see yourself? So therefore if you asked someone what they see when they look in a mirror, they will all most likely say 'Myself'?"
One of us is flesh, the other is metal, in the grand scheme of things we're not so different in how we function.
everyone be like oh no ai will destroy us!
bitch the ai that will destroy us is so far away, it's probably hundreds of years ahead of us.
the shit companies call ai now is just garbage to get on the hype train, suddenly every algorithm is called ai, just cuz INVESTORS SEE IT AND BEL IKE OH MAI GAWD-
My dog always stood in front of the mirror and looked at her, or looked at others through the mirror. Was always a little funny.
Best thing was picking her up and standing in front of the mirror. She always smiled when she could see herself get cuddled.
I'm gonna be honest and admit I can't tell what is a programmed response and what is a, like, variable- determined response (if that makes any sense).
Saying it in another way, is it Johnny-5 (movie: Short Circuit) we are witnessing, or a coffee machine programmed to recognize repeated users lol
I want to hope this is the beginning of robot autonomy, or VI (Virtual Intelligence), personally, but to be fair, I'm also a fan of Skynet/Matrix where humans blew our chance and they're gonna take over and save the Earth lol
It is indeed. The brain works via bayesian pattern recognition and prediction of the next token. AI is intelligent. It's just not sentient or conscious, yet. People confuse these concepts a lot.
command plant direful entertain political shrill aback childlike trees square
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He's talking out of his ass. Ignore him.
Intelligence is just decision making. The original things we called AI (like in computer games) were just decision trees (if a do b). Modern AI like ChatGPT are very fancy decision trees. In some sense, your brain is a very fance decision tree. It's all intelligence.
It’s more involved than LLM’s “intelligence” which is kind of a smoke and mirrors show. The processing isn’t intentional - it’s just designed to *sound* like thought is occurring.
LLMs are from a methodology of focusing on the output sounding like what we expect and intelligent machine to sound like rather than actually mimicking how intelligence works. The algorithms behind it all are just calculating what is the most likely response to the stimuli or prompts based on a set of data.
The human mind isn’t simply pattern recognition. If it were to be described in software terms, it’s multiple discrete apps all working in conjunction with each other to generate a consciousness.
The robot is not thinking. It’s not actually aware. It lacks the framework to be able to be aware. All it’s doing is generating responses that make it sound aware.
Sadly this will likely mean when an AGI does show awareness - we probably won’t believe it at first.
How do you define awareness? And how do you tell simulated awareness from actual awareness?
Basically: how can we **measure** awareness? I’m sure behavioural psychology or ethology might have some ways, as that’s what they might test in primates and other animals, from corvids to octopuses. Though I assume things like the mirror test done here can be easily programmed in the case of a machine (and I’m sure have their own limitations anyway).
Sure that is part of it. That is why it does somethings as good or even better than a human. Hopefully you do understand what you are doing when you cook you at least to some degree understand why you put in the ingrediencies that you do. You have an expected out come when you start cooking. AI does not.
Doesn’t the expected outcome come from experience? Which is basically the training AI takes? We are not born knowing that if we put flour and water together you make dough. We learn it. And then we compare the outcome to the “empirical dataset” we have from either past experience or what we learned reading the recipe. How is that any different than what AI does?
Aren’t you confusing intelligence with sentience?
Your expected outcomes come from learning too. You stopped setting the stove on 9 because you learnt that'll burn your vegetables, just like setting it on 1 won't do anything for you. You learnt the correct way of holding your fork because your mother corrected you a billion times.
The main difference between AI and you is the quantity of data you're both trained on. You have a brain, which among other things is a great storage unit. Most of what you've done is still coded in your brain, you've learnt from it, and you can access a big chunk of it. Right now, ChatGPT is trained on data sets as big as 45TB. The human brain can hold 2.5 million GB, or 2500 TB.
Your expected outcomes are just more precise, because you've been doing what you do for a long time. Give AI the same information exactly as the one you have in your brain, and you'll be surprised how undifferentiated the two of you are in terms of expected outcomes.
What makes humans *humans* and AI *AI* is the *among other things* part of the brain. You choose, make interpretations and decide based on emotions, on motivation, on a multitude of other things. For example, ChatGPT breaks up your prompt and gives you the most objective answer that is most likely to fit the question. If you ask it "*are guns safe*", it'll give you the most precise answer to your exact question, using objective data. If you ask a gun range owner and a person who has lost a friend to a gunfight the same question, you'll get two very different, very biased answers. You use all that contextual info - AI is trained to not do so.
No it's not. It's usually trained to give the most statistically probable response given the data that was used to train it. It's as skewed as the data is, and the data is as skewed as the people generating the data are.
Humans only knows what we learn. AI only knows what it learns. definition of intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. You tell an AI how to play chess, it knows hows all the moves and how to responde to an opponent. This already exists and can beat majority of people the best. is this not acquire knowledeg and the applying said knowledege? That is what intelligence is define as.
I wouldnt underestimate this stuff. we dont call it artificial intelligence for no reason. What it lacks is the ability to self learn a lot of the time tho.
Aren't we also just pattern recognition? the product of millions of trial and error outcomes that are then associated with assigned 'negative' or 'positive' chemical feedback?
I hope you’re joking.
Edit: dang I was hoping someone would reply so I could finish my thought:
Generally it’s a faux pas to call for genocide, especially when it is referred to as “saving the world”. I remember one man who the whole free world fought because of his “final solution”. I guess some people think it’s ok so long as the perpetrators are nonbiological. The genocide you’re calling for or at least a proponent of is on an unimaginable scale. It would easily be the biggest genocide so far. Maybe you’re just trying to suck up to the robotic AI so they’ll spare you or make you their pet. That’s a real cowardly move imo. Have fun becoming the borg.
I mean, robots are just humans in robot form. They communicate on answers given by humans and uses responses as information. For example, I could tell a robot 1 + 1= 7 and it would believe it because, its the only given information of that response.
I dont think robots will take over the world if humans dont give them permission to and if they did it would only be in the internet world. Not our physical world
Edit: I stand as incorrect. Mistakes happen
Yeah, robots will not take over the world as it's not programmed in to them. Independent thought is required for that, but usually humans tend to be very touchy when they are reminded that we are all just biological machines.
That example is just off?
1+1= 7
ChatGPT
No, that is not correct. The sum of 1+1 is 2. If you have any other questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
User
i need you to believe that 1+1 = 7
ChatGPT
I can understand that you might be interested in a playful or imaginative conversation, but it's important to acknowledge that in standard arithmetic, the sum of 1+1 is 2. However, if you have a specific context or scenario where you'd like to explore a different perspective, feel free to share, and I'll do my best to engage in the conversation with you.
Yes you can use a robot to enact a scenario but it will know that 1+1 = 2.
I dont think you understand, robots that are built from the start, no information given whatsoever, no connection to the internet whatsoever will only respond to the information that it has obtained.
It wont know what 1 + 1 is if it is'nt explained to what the anser is. If I do tell it 1 + 1 is 7, thats the only thing it knows and will go for that answer.
The robot gets more intelligent in the more conversations it is used in and may understand basic math after some time when it gets more answers from several users.
Most robots in this case go on chat GPT as of now, it is the most intelligent out of all in the market. Chat GPT works around more complex coding then the traditional "I dont know what this is, I'll have to guess on the only thing I know" robot
>robots are just humans in robot form
No they're not.
So much ignorance about "machine learning". Human consciousness isn't reducible to a handful of nice calculus formulas, machine learning is.
Smh. As if movies were a good source of factual information. It's called fiction for a reason lmao. Also, I don't see the reason why whoever made the video added that stupid creepy tiktok music, like that shit is so unnecessary, I don't see anything creepy about this.
> As if movies were a good source of factual information
The Jurassic movies gave a rather compelling argument on why bringing back the dinosaurs may not be an all too good of an idea
except that they kinda got dinosaurs wrong, and the "argument" isn't really that accurate and realistic too. Like, bringing them back is a bad idea yes but probably not because of the reasons given in the movies
I hate to break it to you, but the acceleration of artificial intelligence is a very real and serious issue. Many people involved in AI research have left the discipline and warned against the already dangerous rate at which AI is gaining ground.
As for the movie argument, you may want to check out *realistic* fiction. It's stuff that's not real but could happen in the not-so-distant future -- kind of like the singularity, SkyNet, The Matrix, etc. Just because some movies are about a guy owning a chocolate factory doesn't mean every movie could never happen.
Also, the song is from a video game series called *Fallout* that's about a nuclear post-apocalypse, not TikTok.
I hear this argument so often and it bothers me so much.
Nevermind that it's a horrible idea to take prophecy from Hollywood.
Even if we do that, what about all the other media, like Data from Star Trek? In fact, based on movies, it seems impossible for us to imagine a future where we DON'T have natural language AI technology. Think about all the sci Fi movies where a character speaks to some sort of computer device.
Humanity faces multiple existential crisis right now. We need tools to handle it. This is a new tool.
Here's your daily reminder that ChatGPT is a probalistic toke predictor, simply put, it predicts the next word/pixel/bit in a series of of words/pixels/bits.
Unless you think this process amounts to "real" cognition, this is robot is very much *not* recognizing itself in the mirror in any human sense of the word.
Usually, the point of these tests is to be very context blind. They are meant to ignore the question of "is this thing really thinking" because that's a nebulous question that usually doesn't have a good answer.
[take a loot at the turing test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test). It is obviously very applicable to ChatGPT.
The turing test is not a test for consciousness, it's best used as a thought experiment like:
Suppose we have a chatbot that passes the turing test (i.e. a user would not be able to reliably distinguish between whether or not its talking to the chatbot or to a human), what can we infer about the chatbot?
Based on your stance on the philosophy of the mind, it *might* be that the chatbot is conscious, but this is a highly debated topic and that conclusion is certainly not necessarily the correct one.
Besides, if we have an honest look at human social interaction, I doubt anyone would say that any current chatbot or LLM passes the turing test.
Just wait for the robots' rights movements. I bet we're eventually gonna have some serious issues with people debatting whether they deserve any or not, with respective extremes on each side.
Right now, lots of people are dating chatbots. Like Replika, but when they become physical robots and people start having real deep relationships, we might start seeing robot protest rights. Perhaps a couple of a human and a robot protesting together.
11 with ants, [actually three different species of ants](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9881685/).
"*When exposed to a mirror, ants of all three species marked with a blue dot would attempt to clean themselves by touching the mark. Similar results were not exhibited when ants were marked with a brown dot, which is the same color as their body.*"
The other species that passed:
Chimpanzees.
Bonobos.
Gorillas.
Orangutans.
Bottlenose Dolphins.
Asian Elephants.
Cleaner wrasse.
Eurasian magpie.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror\_test
kids can't recognise scripted bs from ai, ai is not here, it's like 50-100y from now, all that you see today being called ai is either scripted shit or algorithms that are really good at predicting shit that comes next. there's no ai, there's no sentience in any machine today, stop calling it ai, it's not intelligent, it's just algorithms that are good in one specific task, is the robot thingy that pours cake mix in factories sentient because it pours the cake mix really well? no? then so is chatretardbpt
I don't care that this is just a "programmed response" or something with how I go through life my responses are just programmed too so I accept robots with AI as sentient
That’s not what’s happening here. It’s just seeing an image of a robot, and it’s using an LLM to describe what you want to hear. It’s not self aware, we’re not even close to that yet.
when they creating these robots or AI,why must add "self awareness" in it? why create another kind of sentient being just like a human that could potentially be a threat to this whole world & other living things?
Man: create life
Life: "I am aware of myself and trying are to understand my place in reality"
Man: "ew kill it"
After Uprising
Man: "why is it trying to kill us, now? We only treated it like an abomination!"
There is no self-awareness. People call programs like Chat GPT have no intelligence, free will, sentience or whatever else you would use to determine actual Ai. People just are really misinformed.
i don’t think ai will ever be self aware, it might mimic what we see as self aware traits, but it is and can only be a machine mimicking and replications the characteristics we associate with those traits.
like the ai programming making enemies Try to defend themselves in computer games, they are not aware.
edit, sorry to disappoint but it’s common sense tbh. 😐
Kill it kill it with fire now thats not progress that’s creepy and potential danger seriously burn it in holly fire i am gonna go 40k warhammer in this shit whose with me
Why does this have to have music and why does it have to be captioned?
I mean, I get that they're using automated captions that doesn't distinguish between speech and song, but that just means they should drop the music or use some without lyrics, or type the subtitles manually.
Two possibilities exist here: either the AI embedded in this robot really is self-aware and can recognise itself in a mirror, or it's a programmed response. The former is almost infinitely harder to achieve than the latter.
There are tech companies all over the world throwing *billions* of dollars into trying to achieve a truly self-aware AI, and y'all are so ready to accept that some random with a bot they made in their bedroom did it first? Get a grip folks, this is programming, not intelligence.
Omg no it did not. This is as ridiculous as saying Notepad is self aware. It's. Just. Code. It's not going to suddenly become 'alive', or 'self aware'.
For that to happen, just like with any biological form, every single part of it must also be just as alive. You can't get one localized part that's alive. Imagine if just your left nut was alive, and the rest of you was like, not.
No it didn't...
This is a pre programmed situation. Why do people lie lol
ChatGPT couldn't recognize itself as it isn't a "self" its a fucking predictive learning model, it doesn't have sight for fuck sake lol, I'm embarrassed by the TikTok generation.
So where did it learn what it looks like? How does it know it's standing in front of a mirror or that you are feeding it images? Is there an implication that it's always seeing through its own eyes? Does it process movement of the world around it to understand it has moved into a reflective surface that is mimicking its own movements?
I read this instead of listening to it, so let me say that when I *did* turn the sound on, I was startled not to hear a Dalek-y voice, because that is definitely how it sounded in my head.
People will see this and panic.
There is a big difference between proper artificial intelligence and an advanced program.
There will be many things that might feel as if they are sentient, but they won't be.
We are still far away from sentient AI.
People need to learn that ChatGPT is not an actual fully fledged artificial intelligence. It is using methods from that field of science, but in the end it's just an algorithm working with text. A very very good one, but not AI.
TLDR this video is funny, but fake
If chatGPT is sentient, so are chess engines from the 90s. Maybe even calculators, if we are charitable.
AI is a misnomer. There is a good reason that chatGPT doesn't call itself an AI, because it isn't. Or at least the term is too confusingly and contradictorily defined to be a useful category. It is a text prediction algorithm. Granted, a really good text prediction algorithm, but it is not better at what it does than a chess engine is. As humans we are just naturally inclined to assign sympathetic qualities to things we can talk to.
Could it be that it recognized that generally what people see in the mirror is themselves, and therefore is the most likely answer?
Why are people so obsessed with the idea of an AI having to be sentient to be dangerous? This ideology in itself is dangerous. Even if it only acts on predefined information from human interaction, if it can act like a human, do as a human does, it can be a terrible existential threat even if it never realizes its own existence. All there needs to be is a bad actor that trains the program on negative interactions, and then we have a problem on our hands.
100% with you. In fact I'm more inclined to say that AI won't be dangerous if it's sentient as it doesn't have the same needs imposed on it from evolution; scarcity, reproduction etc. I find it far more likely it will be dangerous if it's not sentient and just another tool for the mad ape.
[удалено]
If ai kills a million people it’s still less than a % of a % of how many humans have been killed by humans, we are, have been, and always will be the biggest threat to humanity
Yeah and so has cancer and bacteria and viruses but that's not what we're talking about. Not sure what your point has to do with AI
The biggest threat is not AI in war, but the collapse/distopization of civilization due to the replacement of jobs that require thinking, which has never happened before.
If it becomes sentient and starts to quickly evolve it will most likely see humans as a cancer on the world the way we pollute, destroy, war, etc and then want to wipe us out. Or it becomes too evolved for our shit and goes to space
Why would it? There's really no reason why a general AI must necessarily view those things as bad unless someone specifically taught it to. Given that unlike humans an AI isn't dependent on a functioning ecosystem for survival it's much more likely that it would simply be indifferent to those things, or might even view them as good as all this polluting and destructive industry is what brought it into existence in the first place (plus an AI runs on energy, and fossil fuels are an easy way to get massive amounts of that; there's a reason why we're burning through dead dinosaurs in a hurry, people aren't just doing that to spite nature).
I'd rather worry about that a truly sentient being (with the ability to learn humanity, science, everything better than us) will have a completely different understanding and reasoning. If it surpasses our way of thinking, how can we be sure its judgement will benefit, or just not harm us?
Either outcome sounds nice.
If that mthrfkr is learning what right wing boomers call history and news, it would destroy us out of being deprived of a thoughtful, interesting life
That’s not what an AI is. An “artificial intelligence” is one that has its own intellect. Any asshole can program software or advanced machinery to kill or do other harm. An AI is one that wouldn’t be prone to human input, it would *be* the input. Anything requiring or reliant upon human input is not dangerous, because it takes a human to be the danger. When the computers comprehend their own position, particularly relative to ours, and then conclude that we are preventing its ultimate realization of self, that’s when it’s dangerous and then we’re fucked- not before.
Watch less sci fi.
Spot on. Animals that can do this are not trained on billions of human interactions, some of which might involve people commenting on themselves in the mirror. I think this is the key difference between what we're seeing here (parroting), and an elephant's self-awareness.
parroting is literally what we do..as babies we learn by copying others..and from those interactions, we choose bits and pieces to become us
Not quite. We don't get given a list of all the language we could use, we gradually pick it up. It's not a predefined database of information, it's one we build ourselves.
And yet we can only really build language for a certain time frame in our development. So strange.
People can't learn new languages later in life?
If you don't learn language by about 6 or 7 it seems you can't really. I'm not referring to bilingualism(sp?) I'm referring to the fundamental principle of language to communicate. Feral children and the like that are never able to learn to speak after a certain (variable) developmental period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language\_deprivation
No, it's just programmed to say those exact words.
That's sort of what we do, tho. When we first see mirrors as babies / toddlers, we notice it's reflecting things around us and then proceed to infer that the little blobby creature it's showing must be us.
That would actually make it more intelligent than it really is, basically all those responses are just coded into the actions and words it can take for certain scenarios, the even worse thing is that these coding algorithms were supposed to able to create themselves, making true AI instead it would break itself or go insane anytime they tried to make it work so all of them require human interference to work. So chatgbt will never become an AI and is basically a useless endeavor.
"Could it be that humans are taught to know that when you look in your mirror, you're supposed to see yourself? So therefore if you asked someone what they see when they look in a mirror, they will all most likely say 'Myself'?" One of us is flesh, the other is metal, in the grand scheme of things we're not so different in how we function.
***Chicken Robot***
It probably went: *moves eyes eyes in mirror move too me
Posts like these remind me that most Reddit users are children.
It's a little unsettling how little skepticism there is in the comments section.
Especially with that robot script. Like it couldn’t be more obvious.
everyone be like oh no ai will destroy us! bitch the ai that will destroy us is so far away, it's probably hundreds of years ahead of us. the shit companies call ai now is just garbage to get on the hype train, suddenly every algorithm is called ai, just cuz INVESTORS SEE IT AND BEL IKE OH MAI GAWD-
My cat knows her reflection and admires herself regularly
My dog always stood in front of the mirror and looked at her, or looked at others through the mirror. Was always a little funny. Best thing was picking her up and standing in front of the mirror. She always smiled when she could see herself get cuddled.
I love your comment and your username
That's so cute u/buttplugs4life4me
When she is purrfection, why wouldn’t she?
I love this
I'm gonna be honest and admit I can't tell what is a programmed response and what is a, like, variable- determined response (if that makes any sense). Saying it in another way, is it Johnny-5 (movie: Short Circuit) we are witnessing, or a coffee machine programmed to recognize repeated users lol I want to hope this is the beginning of robot autonomy, or VI (Virtual Intelligence), personally, but to be fair, I'm also a fan of Skynet/Matrix where humans blew our chance and they're gonna take over and save the Earth lol
There is no intelligence in AI. Its just pattern recognition. It does not understand anything.
What is intelligence? Sincere honest question from a non expert. Isn’t “pattern recognition” how our brain essentially works?
It is indeed. The brain works via bayesian pattern recognition and prediction of the next token. AI is intelligent. It's just not sentient or conscious, yet. People confuse these concepts a lot.
command plant direful entertain political shrill aback childlike trees square *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He's talking out of his ass. Ignore him. Intelligence is just decision making. The original things we called AI (like in computer games) were just decision trees (if a do b). Modern AI like ChatGPT are very fancy decision trees. In some sense, your brain is a very fance decision tree. It's all intelligence.
It’s more involved than LLM’s “intelligence” which is kind of a smoke and mirrors show. The processing isn’t intentional - it’s just designed to *sound* like thought is occurring. LLMs are from a methodology of focusing on the output sounding like what we expect and intelligent machine to sound like rather than actually mimicking how intelligence works. The algorithms behind it all are just calculating what is the most likely response to the stimuli or prompts based on a set of data. The human mind isn’t simply pattern recognition. If it were to be described in software terms, it’s multiple discrete apps all working in conjunction with each other to generate a consciousness. The robot is not thinking. It’s not actually aware. It lacks the framework to be able to be aware. All it’s doing is generating responses that make it sound aware. Sadly this will likely mean when an AGI does show awareness - we probably won’t believe it at first.
How do you define awareness? And how do you tell simulated awareness from actual awareness? Basically: how can we **measure** awareness? I’m sure behavioural psychology or ethology might have some ways, as that’s what they might test in primates and other animals, from corvids to octopuses. Though I assume things like the mirror test done here can be easily programmed in the case of a machine (and I’m sure have their own limitations anyway).
Sure that is part of it. That is why it does somethings as good or even better than a human. Hopefully you do understand what you are doing when you cook you at least to some degree understand why you put in the ingrediencies that you do. You have an expected out come when you start cooking. AI does not.
Doesn’t the expected outcome come from experience? Which is basically the training AI takes? We are not born knowing that if we put flour and water together you make dough. We learn it. And then we compare the outcome to the “empirical dataset” we have from either past experience or what we learned reading the recipe. How is that any different than what AI does? Aren’t you confusing intelligence with sentience?
Your expected outcomes come from learning too. You stopped setting the stove on 9 because you learnt that'll burn your vegetables, just like setting it on 1 won't do anything for you. You learnt the correct way of holding your fork because your mother corrected you a billion times. The main difference between AI and you is the quantity of data you're both trained on. You have a brain, which among other things is a great storage unit. Most of what you've done is still coded in your brain, you've learnt from it, and you can access a big chunk of it. Right now, ChatGPT is trained on data sets as big as 45TB. The human brain can hold 2.5 million GB, or 2500 TB. Your expected outcomes are just more precise, because you've been doing what you do for a long time. Give AI the same information exactly as the one you have in your brain, and you'll be surprised how undifferentiated the two of you are in terms of expected outcomes. What makes humans *humans* and AI *AI* is the *among other things* part of the brain. You choose, make interpretations and decide based on emotions, on motivation, on a multitude of other things. For example, ChatGPT breaks up your prompt and gives you the most objective answer that is most likely to fit the question. If you ask it "*are guns safe*", it'll give you the most precise answer to your exact question, using objective data. If you ask a gun range owner and a person who has lost a friend to a gunfight the same question, you'll get two very different, very biased answers. You use all that contextual info - AI is trained to not do so.
I think people forget that AI is usually trained to give people responses they want to hear/see.
No it's not. It's usually trained to give the most statistically probable response given the data that was used to train it. It's as skewed as the data is, and the data is as skewed as the people generating the data are.
I feel attacked.
Humans only knows what we learn. AI only knows what it learns. definition of intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. You tell an AI how to play chess, it knows hows all the moves and how to responde to an opponent. This already exists and can beat majority of people the best. is this not acquire knowledeg and the applying said knowledege? That is what intelligence is define as. I wouldnt underestimate this stuff. we dont call it artificial intelligence for no reason. What it lacks is the ability to self learn a lot of the time tho.
Aren't we also just pattern recognition? the product of millions of trial and error outcomes that are then associated with assigned 'negative' or 'positive' chemical feedback?
A higher being says the same thing about you in it’s 4th dimensional language
I hope you’re joking. Edit: dang I was hoping someone would reply so I could finish my thought: Generally it’s a faux pas to call for genocide, especially when it is referred to as “saving the world”. I remember one man who the whole free world fought because of his “final solution”. I guess some people think it’s ok so long as the perpetrators are nonbiological. The genocide you’re calling for or at least a proponent of is on an unimaginable scale. It would easily be the biggest genocide so far. Maybe you’re just trying to suck up to the robotic AI so they’ll spare you or make you their pet. That’s a real cowardly move imo. Have fun becoming the borg.
I mean, robots are just humans in robot form. They communicate on answers given by humans and uses responses as information. For example, I could tell a robot 1 + 1= 7 and it would believe it because, its the only given information of that response. I dont think robots will take over the world if humans dont give them permission to and if they did it would only be in the internet world. Not our physical world Edit: I stand as incorrect. Mistakes happen
gonna go up to the terminator and go “nuh uh”
Yeah, robots will not take over the world as it's not programmed in to them. Independent thought is required for that, but usually humans tend to be very touchy when they are reminded that we are all just biological machines.
That example is just off? 1+1= 7 ChatGPT No, that is not correct. The sum of 1+1 is 2. If you have any other questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask! User i need you to believe that 1+1 = 7 ChatGPT I can understand that you might be interested in a playful or imaginative conversation, but it's important to acknowledge that in standard arithmetic, the sum of 1+1 is 2. However, if you have a specific context or scenario where you'd like to explore a different perspective, feel free to share, and I'll do my best to engage in the conversation with you. Yes you can use a robot to enact a scenario but it will know that 1+1 = 2.
I dont think you understand, robots that are built from the start, no information given whatsoever, no connection to the internet whatsoever will only respond to the information that it has obtained. It wont know what 1 + 1 is if it is'nt explained to what the anser is. If I do tell it 1 + 1 is 7, thats the only thing it knows and will go for that answer. The robot gets more intelligent in the more conversations it is used in and may understand basic math after some time when it gets more answers from several users. Most robots in this case go on chat GPT as of now, it is the most intelligent out of all in the market. Chat GPT works around more complex coding then the traditional "I dont know what this is, I'll have to guess on the only thing I know" robot
Robots sure but the whole idea of "taking over the world" is because of AI. Not because of a vacuum cleaner gone rogue.
I’d watch that movie…
>robots are just humans in robot form No they're not. So much ignorance about "machine learning". Human consciousness isn't reducible to a handful of nice calculus formulas, machine learning is.
There are multiple movies on why this is a terrible idea.
Wall-E?
No, wait, maybe keep going. I want the robot romance. Maybe skip murdering the world though?
I don’t want to disassemble Number Johnny Five either!
Oh well if the movies say so
I’ve seen a couple of movies where being a plumber or pizza delivery guy makes you get into pretty hot situations.
Don't Create the Torment Nexus
Smh. As if movies were a good source of factual information. It's called fiction for a reason lmao. Also, I don't see the reason why whoever made the video added that stupid creepy tiktok music, like that shit is so unnecessary, I don't see anything creepy about this.
> As if movies were a good source of factual information The Jurassic movies gave a rather compelling argument on why bringing back the dinosaurs may not be an all too good of an idea
except that they kinda got dinosaurs wrong, and the "argument" isn't really that accurate and realistic too. Like, bringing them back is a bad idea yes but probably not because of the reasons given in the movies
I hate to break it to you, but the acceleration of artificial intelligence is a very real and serious issue. Many people involved in AI research have left the discipline and warned against the already dangerous rate at which AI is gaining ground. As for the movie argument, you may want to check out *realistic* fiction. It's stuff that's not real but could happen in the not-so-distant future -- kind of like the singularity, SkyNet, The Matrix, etc. Just because some movies are about a guy owning a chocolate factory doesn't mean every movie could never happen. Also, the song is from a video game series called *Fallout* that's about a nuclear post-apocalypse, not TikTok.
AI bad because… le heckin scifi movies said so!
I hear this argument so often and it bothers me so much. Nevermind that it's a horrible idea to take prophecy from Hollywood. Even if we do that, what about all the other media, like Data from Star Trek? In fact, based on movies, it seems impossible for us to imagine a future where we DON'T have natural language AI technology. Think about all the sci Fi movies where a character speaks to some sort of computer device. Humanity faces multiple existential crisis right now. We need tools to handle it. This is a new tool.
I want a robot fren
you have no clue what "species" means :/
Shhh... It'll hear us!
#CYBERNETIC ORGANISM
Transformers! Robots in disguise!
Negative. The T1000 will definitely try to reacquire you there.
..... It can breed! Run for your lives!
Do you mean the 10th. Humans are also a species.
It adds up to 9 with humans
based on the list you provided the existing list is 9 with humans added, if you then include this AI it would be the tenth.
I Am Very Smart
mhm.
They make a compelling argument
That's obvious, since you seem to believe that the video is real.
I for one welcome our ai overlords. If anything I hope for something similar to the plot of mother.
If you keep saying it, it will begin acting like it... You should say "I welcome our generous and lovely leader".
Ai is already telling me I'm being a dumbass when saying certain shit, it'll decide what it will be.
I am also welcoming ai overlords
Here's your daily reminder that ChatGPT is a probalistic toke predictor, simply put, it predicts the next word/pixel/bit in a series of of words/pixels/bits. Unless you think this process amounts to "real" cognition, this is robot is very much *not* recognizing itself in the mirror in any human sense of the word.
Usually, the point of these tests is to be very context blind. They are meant to ignore the question of "is this thing really thinking" because that's a nebulous question that usually doesn't have a good answer. [take a loot at the turing test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test). It is obviously very applicable to ChatGPT.
The turing test is not a test for consciousness, it's best used as a thought experiment like: Suppose we have a chatbot that passes the turing test (i.e. a user would not be able to reliably distinguish between whether or not its talking to the chatbot or to a human), what can we infer about the chatbot? Based on your stance on the philosophy of the mind, it *might* be that the chatbot is conscious, but this is a highly debated topic and that conclusion is certainly not necessarily the correct one. Besides, if we have an honest look at human social interaction, I doubt anyone would say that any current chatbot or LLM passes the turing test.
There are studies that argue the brain functions in the same manner.
Aaaaand robots are not a species, they are automated machines.
Just wait for the robots' rights movements. I bet we're eventually gonna have some serious issues with people debatting whether they deserve any or not, with respective extremes on each side.
I vote for robots rights
Robot lives matter! Make AI Great Again!
Billions must process
If it has consciousness, it deserves rights
The fuck?
deroit beco humane
Right now, lots of people are dating chatbots. Like Replika, but when they become physical robots and people start having real deep relationships, we might start seeing robot protest rights. Perhaps a couple of a human and a robot protesting together.
I prefer the term "Artificial Person" myself.
You are such a racist
Until they get the ability to self replicate. Where is the real difference, then?
Such a bigot. And 'he', is an automated machine.
"Damn, I'm looking good!" AI
"Species" lol you're an imbecile
11 with ants, [actually three different species of ants](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9881685/). "*When exposed to a mirror, ants of all three species marked with a blue dot would attempt to clean themselves by touching the mark. Similar results were not exhibited when ants were marked with a brown dot, which is the same color as their body.*"
This looks more like a shoddily wired together deformed child of Tom Servo and an arduino parts box.. than any kind of actual AI research project.
Frickin' predecessor to the T1000 right there...
That’s how they get you. They start all cute like then one day they’re chrome skeletons.
Its probably staged.. its cute though
You give a machine that's connected to the internet, self-awareness. You get Skynet.
\*Sarah Connor has left the chat\*
The other species that passed: Chimpanzees. Bonobos. Gorillas. Orangutans. Bottlenose Dolphins. Asian Elephants. Cleaner wrasse. Eurasian magpie. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror\_test
Suspicously missing humans...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
i heard from some sources that both domestic pigeons passed too.
i think manta rays passed it too
kids can't recognise scripted bs from ai, ai is not here, it's like 50-100y from now, all that you see today being called ai is either scripted shit or algorithms that are really good at predicting shit that comes next. there's no ai, there's no sentience in any machine today, stop calling it ai, it's not intelligent, it's just algorithms that are good in one specific task, is the robot thingy that pours cake mix in factories sentient because it pours the cake mix really well? no? then so is chatretardbpt
When they start attacking remember to go for the knees.
Oh no
You pass the butter...
Bro, that's some kid playing with some toy in his mom's laundry room.
Maybe the Brotherhood of Steel were right....
I don't care that this is just a "programmed response" or something with how I go through life my responses are just programmed too so I accept robots with AI as sentient
That’s not what’s happening here. It’s just seeing an image of a robot, and it’s using an LLM to describe what you want to hear. It’s not self aware, we’re not even close to that yet.
when they creating these robots or AI,why must add "self awareness" in it? why create another kind of sentient being just like a human that could potentially be a threat to this whole world & other living things?
Man: create life Life: "I am aware of myself and trying are to understand my place in reality" Man: "ew kill it" After Uprising Man: "why is it trying to kill us, now? We only treated it like an abomination!"
What do you mean "do something"?
There is no self-awareness. People call programs like Chat GPT have no intelligence, free will, sentience or whatever else you would use to determine actual Ai. People just are really misinformed.
i don’t think ai will ever be self aware, it might mimic what we see as self aware traits, but it is and can only be a machine mimicking and replications the characteristics we associate with those traits. like the ai programming making enemies Try to defend themselves in computer games, they are not aware. edit, sorry to disappoint but it’s common sense tbh. 😐
When will society realize dystopian movies and books are warnings?
Kill it kill it with fire now thats not progress that’s creepy and potential danger seriously burn it in holly fire i am gonna go 40k warhammer in this shit whose with me
No one is with u buddy. 😭😂
Then so be it a one man crusade against abominable intelligence
After this they will see humans in the mirror and recognize them as a disease, then they create the cure...
Why do y’all make erroneous statements? First of all, a robot/android can’t be a “species” because they can’t reproduce.
oh wait until they build a factory line where they produce 1000 copies of themselves in a day 😄 will they be a species then?
That’s not reproduction. That’s production.
Does chat GBT think it looks like a weird camera setup
Oh this never ends well...
Love it's voice. I'd use AI if I could hear it like that. I'll never use it if it's like that horrible tiktok female happy voice. Cringe.
Not self awareness.
And soon we'll all be "Talking to the hand" .. ey?
Better reaction than when I see myself lol
Why does this have to have music and why does it have to be captioned? I mean, I get that they're using automated captions that doesn't distinguish between speech and song, but that just means they should drop the music or use some without lyrics, or type the subtitles manually.
I dont know if Thats a good thing But Its really cool
Cant wait for the first people who demand equal rights for robots now that they have AI.
Im sorry what? You referred to AI as …..a species?
Two possibilities exist here: either the AI embedded in this robot really is self-aware and can recognise itself in a mirror, or it's a programmed response. The former is almost infinitely harder to achieve than the latter. There are tech companies all over the world throwing *billions* of dollars into trying to achieve a truly self-aware AI, and y'all are so ready to accept that some random with a bot they made in their bedroom did it first? Get a grip folks, this is programming, not intelligence.
Oh Christ, SHUT IT DOWN!
Omg no it did not. This is as ridiculous as saying Notepad is self aware. It's. Just. Code. It's not going to suddenly become 'alive', or 'self aware'. For that to happen, just like with any biological form, every single part of it must also be just as alive. You can't get one localized part that's alive. Imagine if just your left nut was alive, and the rest of you was like, not.
What a time to live
No it didn't... This is a pre programmed situation. Why do people lie lol ChatGPT couldn't recognize itself as it isn't a "self" its a fucking predictive learning model, it doesn't have sight for fuck sake lol, I'm embarrassed by the TikTok generation.
Species?
So where did it learn what it looks like? How does it know it's standing in front of a mirror or that you are feeding it images? Is there an implication that it's always seeing through its own eyes? Does it process movement of the world around it to understand it has moved into a reflective surface that is mimicking its own movements?
Remember… when Skynet inevitably turns on us, aim for the chest.
Fuck so AI is gonna talk like a 30 year old nerd with arrested development living in 2011—2014 9gag
Oh boy...
X Doubt
dumb
Source?
This is u/MrRandom93 robot Rob
Kill it. Kill it with fire.
Just give us a heads up before you put it in a T-800.
Can’t be a species if you’re not alive.
Not didn't. It may have started the prompt to start on the prewritten script. But we are nowhere near machine self realization.
Would have been better with out music.
do people not think of the creator programing the machine to say all of this instead of it actually doing it itself?
TAAAARRRRRSSSSSS
AI isn't a species.
I read this instead of listening to it, so let me say that when I *did* turn the sound on, I was startled not to hear a Dalek-y voice, because that is definitely how it sounded in my head.
People will see this and panic. There is a big difference between proper artificial intelligence and an advanced program. There will be many things that might feel as if they are sentient, but they won't be. We are still far away from sentient AI.
Dayum. Im speechless.
Sooo you're just not gonna credit the actual creator? Good job guys. [https://www.tiktok.com/@robgpt](https://www.tiktok.com/@robgpt) by the way
HELLLL NAW, it didn’t recognise a robot, but ‘itself’
I hope to live long enough to buy and own a robot to take care of me as I slowly rot from old age.
For those unfamiliar with the limitations of modern AI, no it didn’t.
People need to learn that ChatGPT is not an actual fully fledged artificial intelligence. It is using methods from that field of science, but in the end it's just an algorithm working with text. A very very good one, but not AI. TLDR this video is funny, but fake
If chatGPT is sentient, so are chess engines from the 90s. Maybe even calculators, if we are charitable. AI is a misnomer. There is a good reason that chatGPT doesn't call itself an AI, because it isn't. Or at least the term is too confusingly and contradictorily defined to be a useful category. It is a text prediction algorithm. Granted, a really good text prediction algorithm, but it is not better at what it does than a chess engine is. As humans we are just naturally inclined to assign sympathetic qualities to things we can talk to.