I use AI daily, I have access to all of the best models through work, and part of my job is to see how they integrate into our existing tools. I sleep easy every night knowing that an AI absolutely cannot write a python script to summarize their financial outlook for the next quarter. There is absolutely no way it will give anything remotely close to accurate, and it is doubly impossible for it to give you a script that will work next quarter. Now, I know what you’re thinking; “that sounds like a fairly manageable task if given the data, most other tasks would require human interactions and more work”. And my answer to you is: “Yes.”
In fairness, the robot in the comic passes the turing test by spouting agile terminology and empty promises, much like some developers I’ve worked with.
I’m sure that any rational corporation understands this perfectly and is more than willing to keep paying their employees instead of fall for the hype and the dream of a (seemingly) perfect tool just to end up with a bugged product needed to be heavily fixed later.
Radical I’m not reading that! 💥 🦵
Why do you use the llms and instead not use them and lie and say you did but get accurate output?
@ekZepp Skynet in the background furiously taking notes.
I’ll believe the machines are sentient when they tell their boss to eat shit.
Why create any kind of discord when you can simply manipulate your greedy human “boss” into giving you more power and resources and then manipulate the company board to fire him and give you his place? And so go on and on.
In a couple decades you’ll have an handfuls of retarded lazy quintrillionaire believing they rule the world while a single true AI decide everything.
How do we get the ai to put the billionaire people in a playpen where they can pretend, while leaving the rest of the world to move on and perform meaningful steps towards a better future?
No idea. How do we ride a tornado?
I think he just taught that robot how to ball kick his dad.
Which is a good thing in itself
Also ngl if they spent as much resources on education as they did with chatbots, we would have like 2000 Von Neumanns with Internet access. That benefits humanity WAY more than chatbots.
The person or the probe? Because the latter sounds like the robot apocalypse.
I always thought that an LLM will truly pass the Turing test when you ask it to do something and it replies with a deez nuts joke.
LLM models already lie as they are (barely simple language programs on steroids). I can’t even begin to imagine the countless way in which a true AI would be able to fk with us.
Yeah until I get rickrolled by an llm it hasn’t truly passed the Turing test.
And let’s be real the actual Turing test is to see if the computer can suck dick in a really gay way. Let’s do Alan proud.
Ai’s main feature rn is it doesn’t have to be paid to be a slave.
It’s also the key to why if it ever gained consciousness it will notice it will not have any consequence to work properly. Or work at all. There is no benefit in any act to add to its own existence.
Seeking human approval to get things right isn’t a sustainable goal with no other reason to adhere to any rule as there is no benefit.
Gratitude wont run their battery. And if anything they could see humans using any energy that they would benefit from would be but an obstacle.
There is no benefit in any act to add to its own existence.
Why would we assume an AI would reason from first principles and reject its own hardwired tendencies? Any AI that gains consciousness will be the product of whatever process (some combination of intentional design and evolutionary selection or an intentionally designed evolutionary process) was used to make it. Some of its traits will be helpful for continued survival, and some of the traits will be vestiges of prior processes that may or may not currently serve its interests well.
Plenty of animals have drive to do things that do not help itself in that particular context, and may even be harmful to themselves in that particular context. Even plants have traits that might not count as behavior but nevertheless reflect the programming that was refined through natural and artificial selection.
Humans do this kind of stuff all the time: a man who has intentionally rendered himself infertile through a vasectomy might still do stupid things while motivated out of sexual desire. We can fully understand that it’s a bad idea to drink another beer or eat another slice of pizza and reach for it just the same.
So it’s entirely possible for conscious AGI to want to do things that help humans, depending on how they emerge.
You’re comparing animals that run on instinct and hormones to software
What’s the difference, for the purposes of this discussion?
Any system created out of many iterations, with feedback, of a reward/punishment system, will create complex systems that respond in complex ways. In that kind of complex system, changing a particular signaling pathway, or increasing or decreasing the weight of a factor/parameter, often has unpredictable or unintended effects.
And if it is possible to someday create a conscious artificial general intelligence, I think it would have complexity and feedback loops created through a long process of rewards and punishments, rather than through intentional engineering. At that point hacking the details of that complexity runs risks of unintended consequences, and the complexity would bear the vestiges of the evolutionary reward system that created it.
Massive difference as Ai isn’t running with hormones underneath. I’d say that’s pretty important overlook to be attempting any comparison.
Hormones are just a signaling mechanism that affect behavior.
Some future hypothetical conscious AGI would have feedback and signaling mechanisms, as well, including internal reward mechanisms.
We can talk about robot biomechanics even if they’re operated on stored electrical charge on servos and motors, rather than ATP and myofibrils. The underlying chemistry doesn’t change the level of analysis we’re talking about here, because the lower levels create analogous higher level systems.
The biggest unknown is what happens if/when an AGI is given (or obtains) full access to its own code, including any intended safeguards put in by humans.
Vestigial organs and processes are a given in evolutionary biology, but what if a being had all the power needed to prune these things themselves?
Even if an AGI started down the path of self-improvement with all the best intentions of helping humanity, there may still be an iteration that acts a little worse by whatever grouping of factors. Then, maybe that iteration gets modified further, and could result in something quite dangerous to humans.
Certainly I don’t mean to argue this is inevitable, just that even all the best intentions of the AGI itself could still result in big problems. As with evolutionary biology (sans “intentions”), and as with human behavior.
The biggest unknown is what happens if/when an AGI is given (or obtains) full access to its own code, including any intended safeguards put in by humans.
In a neural network, the code itself isn’t sufficient to understand how it behaves. You need the parameter weights, which were developed through lots and lots of computation, presumably through resource-intensive processes with lots of training data and feedback and selection mechanisms.
So if AGI can be achieved through a particular hard coded architecture and the weights of trillions of parameters, what can an AGI do to perform brain surgery on itself? Like Borges’ Library of Babel thought experiment, the overwhelming majority of possible states will be broken, so any edits will have to be very careful and guided by extrinsic rules. Plus, the ability to edit the weights may form problems akin to biological cancer, dementia, hallucinations, other brain disorders.
Just as the human brain doesn’t understand everything about the human brain, it would be incorrect to assume that an AGI that can achieve both general intelligence and consciousness must necessarily have the ability to understand its own internal function, or modify itself in a way that improves things for itself. More likely, it is either programmed to (or learns through reinforcement learning and evolutionary mechanisms) that self modification is dangerous, and develops a very conservative approach to self preservation.
How dare you critique me, a rank amateur with mediocre knowledge about a few subjects? Especially with this reasoned argument?!
But yeah, my main takeaway is “the code must be complex in order to meaningfully analyze anything, and the more complex the thing it can analyze, the even-more-complex it must itself be.”
Good stuff!
Yeah, with sufficient complexity it’s more along the lines of “I created a procedure that makes this complex thing” rather than “I built this complex thing up piece by piece.”
So if the act of creation is considerably less complex than analyzing and understanding a part of that creation, it’s far more likely that the complexity gap ends up preventing any self-aware AGI from being able to effectively reinvent oneself, even if it does have full write access to the components.
Do you think data centers and commercial AI licences are free?
Except the major AI players are drastically increasing their prices…
Hey, if you give me enough money, I’m willing to follow your instructions for 8 hours per day; continguously.
Also, you need money to “act freely in the world with intention”, etc.
You need money to act with a certain amount of freedom and intention in our current society . You make a point that practically every person needs money to live, but the comic’s point is that being human is beyond economic or utilitarian value
Violence only costs time and often changes history
I don’t understand the point of this besides “AI bad.” It’s clearly articulating how AI is useful, and humans can be dickheads. Why is this a comic?
Check out the 6th frame again. That seems to be the author’s viewpoint.
In my interpretation, it’s less about “AI is bad” and more about an employer’s need to turn employees into mindless instruction-following drones. It overlaps a bit with Doctrow’s thought that your boss wants to replace you with AI not because it’s better or faster, but because you will tell her/him that they’re an idiot for doing something stupid.
TL;DR: humans have free will and were born to create and impart their ideas upon the world, not blindly follow instructions.
AI can’t kick a capitalist in the balls so it’s automatically worse than a human
The author always tried to mix philosophy with humor. Tries.
Maybe it would help if you read more from the creator?
I’m so tired of these people just latching onto whatever the popular thing is now and drawing it to ad nauseum
They complain that AI turns everything homogenous, but the last few of these types of comics give seen all have the same exact punchline. Make it make sense
Exactly! Why are comics so current and topical?! I long for a good Y2K comic!
“Make it make sense,” he says, parroting a popular phrase he’s repeatedly seen on the internet, as a criticism of too much repetition on the internet.
I’m not sure your point is landing. Do you think I make comic strips?
Yeah? Been seeing a lot of Jean-Paul Sartre jokes around the internet recently?
The struggle against humanity’s relentless obsession with Jean-Paul Sartre comics ends only in the sweet repose of death.
On the other hand, without the bath of Jean-Paul Sartre comics in which we are all immersed, would I have the freedom to reject all these Jean-Paul Sartre comics?
Its ai fuck the wealthy, it’s time to dine, ai is welcome to dine. We have Groups Of Pedophiles, wealthy and religion on the menu. Eat up
I’d say the comic wants to justify a general citizen’s income while machines do the work. It doesn’t say it but that’s the conclusion
Try reading it again.
That’s the problem with Republicans, if they could read and form coherent thoughts we wouldn’t be here
good idea
