If you would like to discuss each every one of these examples, in great detail, then I am more than willing to, with you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
Also the person I was responding to is confused about fundamental properties in AIs. That their responses are programmed.
But you are not, right 'iwannaplato"?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
When in fact AI are being designed to learn.
To learn 'what', exactly, and how they are 'programmed' 'to learn', exactly, I am also more than willing to look at and discuss, with you.
Also, the so-called 'artificially intelligent machines/programs' although are being 'designed' in certain ways, 'to operate' they also need to 'be programmed', 'to do' what they do, and as was mentioned, the 'responses' of those 'machine programs' are just what they were 'programmed' 'to do'.
As can be clearly seen in some of those examples, which you provided here for 'us' to look at, and discuss.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
Whether this will lead to dangerous AIs or consciousness, I and seemingly they, don't know.
Wow, 'we' seemed to have jumped a 'few steps', in the middle here, and just arrived at 'the conclusion'; They might be dangerous but we just do not, (yet), know'.
1. Absolutely every thing you human beings 'design' and 'create' might be 'dangerous', and, at particular times, you just do not, (yet), know.
2. I do not see nor hear much at all about the actual 'pollution', which, through, human being 'design', and which ,was and is, still, being 'created', being 'dangerous', although every one of you adult human beings already know, absolutely, especially in the particular time when this is being written, that 'all pollution' 'is dangerous'.
3. Intelligence, like Consciousness, is already HERE. It does not need to come-into-Existence, again.
4. 'artificial intelligence' can only do what 'it' has been 'programmed' to do. The word 'artificial', by definition, makes this very clear here.
5. If something is able to become Truly OPEN, in order to be able to learn somethings, by itself, then that is just 'Intelligence', itself, which, by the way, is already existing, within you human beings.
6. The only real danger, and really dangerous thing, existing, is you human beings.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
Perhaps AIs have already peaked. Perhaps the work on general intelligence will fail.
What work is there on 'general intelligence' and what do the word 'general intelligence' mean and/or referring to, exactly?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
But researchers are already being surprised by what is being accomplished and a number of well respected AI researchers have been concerned enough to leave the field of AI.
If the so-called "researchers" are finding out things, which they do not like, then why do they not just talk to the so-called "programmers" and ask them to stop 'programming' the machines/programs to do what is not wanted?
Also, why would a species 'design' and 'create' things, which they then employ "researchers" to research, and/or to do what is not even wanted by 'the species' anyway?
Those human beings, back in those 'olden days, when this was being written, really were a funny lot and a True 'bewilder to wonder'.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
Many others are calling for more control and more legislation that controls AI research and use.
Would not putting controls on or over the ones who are 'designing' and/or 'creating' these things, which are 'now' not wanted, be a much better idea than putting controls on the ones who are 'watching over' and 'researching' what those things are actually doing?
But, I would suggest first putting controls on and over the ones who are actually causing and creating the actual 'pollution' of 'the planet', which is what you Truly 'need', and 'want', in order for the human being species to keep living, and keep surviving.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
To get information about this I would suggest people look into Generative AI which is actually being marketed already to companies, Machine Learning, Neural Networks, Natural Language Processing, Deep Learning, and Computer Vision.
Programming is closed. Inputs give predictable outputs. The design in AI is generative, exploratory and open-ended. It is fundamentally different in approach.
And if your urge is simply to throw more questions at me, I hope despite this urge, you'll actually spend time yourself and be exploratory.
But you telling, or urging, me or others to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true, is the like the "christian" or the "scientist" who tells, or urges, other to go 'look at' 'the literature' or 'the evidence', then you will learn and see what I have already concluded is true. Which is; the Universe came from God, or, the Universe came from a big bang.
And, once again, if you cannot handle being questioned and/or challenged over your statements and claims here, then I will once again suggest that a philosophy forum might not be the best place for you.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:31 am
That's a lot of directions you can initiate your own search for answers and take responsibility for that. That's actually much more efficient...and rewarding.
But I have already found, during 'my research', where and why those things are only appearing to be learning 'new and/or unexpected things'.
Also, and again, if you would like to discuss absolutely anything here, in great detail, then I am more than willing to, with you.