Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read
"Cognition" is an ambiguous metric next to "sentience". Nothing is written from scratch, really. Everyone builds on what they observed or read in the past. Self thinking? Learning? I would award you karma just for the savvy of your argument but I don't have any left.
Are you a writer? If so would you use these tools if you were enabled to do so? If you are a writer then how would you feel about them being used by companies with these enormous resources?
I don't know if I believe in AI, and I absolutely don't know what defines such. Even with my measure of intelligence I didn't know whether to use a hyphen with "AI Generated". True AI is defined by sentience, no current applications or even perceivable applications are capable of that. All of this I think is a different argument and maybe that is your point, that I mis-titled my post.
|
Not a writer.
(Other than technical reports or articles.)
The best presentation I've seen on AI was in BioWare's MASS EFFECT trilogy, where they clearly distinguished between true cybernetic sentience, true self aware Artificial Intelligence with natural self-preservation and replication instincts, and what they termed Virtual Intelligence, conversational database interfaces that seem to be Intelligent until they reach the limits of their programming. They never pretend to be sentient because in the MASS EFFECT universe true AIs are forbidden tech because have a history of going rogue and hostile to organics.
What we have developed so far is a very crude breed of what they called VI's: software that can pass as intelligences under some limited conditions but it's just an illusion, a facade hiding purely deterministic procedural algorithms.
Where the debate of the dangers of "AI" comes from isn't about the software developing sentience but that the software has a certain amount of runtime self modification so that the actual execution code isn't programmed/vetted by humans. Humans write software that tunes itself and determines its execution parameters so debugging and quality assurance is pretty much impossible. instead of being hard coded, bugs are variably emergent. It's like a machine that has an intermitent glitch that comes and goes at random.
So the thought of many is that the much hyped AI tech is inherently unstable and untrustworthy. (You ever hear of the microsoft Tay conversational "AI" chatbot? Went off the rails in a few hours.
https://www.techspot.com/news/64222-...-bot-less.html)
"AI" isn't much of a threat if it's used to adjust the lighting in a room but gets iffy if it's in charge of driving a sixteen wheeler down a freeway and could be positively deadly if it's controlling a war machine, like the robot tanks the russians claim to have developed.
(Personally I hope it's as much bluster as some of their space tech claims because it takes a spectacularly stupid person to teach a machine to kill humans and then set it loose without human supervision.)
Bottom line, most AI claims are just marketing hype so far. The tech has its uses in very narrow situations but it's, as the Google guy said, very, very stupid software.