I’m tired of this so-called “debate”. It’s a spectacular nothingburger attempt to narrativize a natural, smooth evolution in computing power as a phase shift into a qualitatively different tech regime. There *are* real phase shifts underway, this just ain’t one of them.
-
-
Non-anthropomorphic computation otoh is not usefully illuminated by unmotivated comparisons to human capability. AlphaGo can beat us at Go A steam engine can outrun us Same story. More geewhiz essentialism that’s it.
Show this thread -
Same steady assault on human egocentricity that’s been going on since copernicus. Not being the center is not the same as being “replaced.” Risks are not the same as malevolence Apathetic harm from a complex system is not the same as intelligence at work
Show this thread -
“Intelligence” is a geocentrism kinda idea. The belief that “our” thoughts “revolve around” us. Like skies seem to revolve around earth. “AI” is merely the ego-assaulting discovery that intelligence is just an illusion caused by low-entropy computation flows passing through us.
Show this thread -
What annoys me about “AI” understandings of statistical algorithms is that it obscures genuinely fascinating questions about computation. For example it appears any Universal Turing Machine (UTM) can recover the state of any other UTM given enough sample output and memory.
Show this thread -
This strikes me as more analogous to a heat engine locally reversing entropy than “intelligence”. But nobody studies things like gpt2 in such terms. Can we draw a Carnot cycle type diagram for it? What’s the efficiency possible?
Show this thread -
The tedious anthropocentric lens (technically the aspie-hedgehog-rationalist projective lens) stifles other creative perspectives because of the appeal of angels-on-a-pinhead bs thought experiments like simulationism. Heat engines, swarms, black holes, fluid flows...
Show this thread -
Most AI watchers recognize that the economy and complex bureaucratic orgs are also AIs in the same ontological sense as the silicon based ones, but we don’t see the same moral panic there. When in fact both have even gone through paperclip-maximizer type phases. Why?
Show this thread -
I’ll tell you why. Because they don’t lend themselves as easily to anthropomorphic projection or be recognizably deployed into contests like beating humans at Go. Markets beat humans at Go via prizes. Bureaucracies do it via medals and training.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If this is your stance "the benefits of anthropomorphic computation to some will outweigh their costs to many, which is fine." I humbly disagree, but concede all my previous points are thus rebutted by such an attitude.
-
*disagree about the 'this is fine' part.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
