What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

[Skepdick]

Point is all those past "threats" had taken the previous laborious workload off the shoulders of humans and relieve and facilitate them to think deeper, further and more rigorously.

Most of the time when you take people's jobs they don't go into deep philosophy and solving the world's problems. They go into alcoholism and depression.

[Iwannaplato]

While there is some potential threat,
I believe the doubt about AI is the same as the masses that were once against the advent of the trains, the electronic calculator, the computer and now AI.

Feel free to show us where trains and electronic calculators were considered threats to humanity by masses. The concerns about computers would have included that time when computers potentially had capabilities which include AI.

One thing some people don't realize is that there has been a qualitative shift in technology At one time even the worst possible technological misuses and or disasters would be local. Even if that localness might be vast - Chernobyl, if not for some incredibly brave and smart people could have been many orders of magnitude worse, but still, in the end, with its worst effect, local. But now nano-tech, genetic modification and AI all have capabilities as formats, to go beyond local as far as life forms on earth.

This is necessary because these advancements enable us to be more aware of greater global and galactical threats to the human species, thus enable the possibility of preventing the problems.
Naturally, the potential evil is also increased but the parallel increase in the moral progress will curb the manifestations of greater evils.

Ah, it's great we have a precognitive in our midst. Philip K. Dick ashes are trying to giggle.

I for one am reassured. We survived the existential threat of the calculator.
There's more regulation and government oversight of the use of herbs, than AIs, and in the US things like toys and cosmetics are regulated more than nano and gm.

The EU managed to produce the first AI regulation, but it's intended function related (and has exceptions even there for governments, for example) not capability-related.

[Veritas Aequitas]

While there is some potential threat,
I believe the doubt about AI is the same as the masses that were once against the advent of the trains, the electronic calculator, the computer and now AI.

Feel free to show us where trains and electronic calculators were considered threats to humanity by masses. The concerns about computers would have included that time when computers potentially had capabilities which include AI.

One thing some people don't realize is that there has been a qualitative shift in technology At one time even the worst possible technological misuses and or disasters would be local. Even if that localness might be vast - Chernobyl, if not for some incredibly brave and smart people could have been many orders of magnitude worse, but still, in the end, with its worst effect, local. But now nano-tech, genetic modification and AI all have capabilities as formats, to go beyond local as far as life forms on earth.

This is necessary because these advancements enable us to be more aware of greater global and galactical threats to the human species, thus enable the possibility of preventing the problems.
Naturally, the potential evil is also increased but the parallel increase in the moral progress will curb the manifestations of greater evils.

Ah, it's great we have a precognitive in our midst. Philip K. Dick ashes are trying to giggle.

I for one am reassured. We survived the existential threat of the calculator.
There's more regulation and government oversight of the use of herbs, than AIs, and in the US things like toys and cosmetics are regulated more than nano and gm.

The EU managed to produce the first AI regulation, but it's intended function related (and has exceptions even there for governments, for example) not capability-related.

You haven't read of the below sort of information? There are more of what was reported of the above points.

In the early 19th century, the advent of steam-powered trains, or the "iron horses" as they were then known, marked a significant milestone in the era of the industrial revolution.
With their enormous power and speed, these locomotives not only revolutionized transport and communication, but also induced a profound sense of fear and anxiety among the populace.
As with any major technological advancement, steam trains brought with them a mix of excitement, opportunity, trepidation, and dread.
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom ... ain-fears/

One point is I am a very 'voracious' extensive reader; when I mentioned something, it is from what I have read.

The above exposed your limited range of knowledge and I will not bother to justify the other points you are ignorant of.

[Skepdick]

The EU managed to produce the first AI regulation, but it's intended function related (and has exceptions even there for governments, for example) not capability-related.

Regulations against AI are about as effective as stern words against Putin.

Without power to enforce them - the paperwork would have been utilised in bathrooms wiping asses.

The AI alignment problem is about establishing control over entities which may refuse to be controlled.

[Skepdick]

Well, plenty of humans seek to sell you stuff.

In a sense - every interaction in the world is a form of salesmanship.

Things change you.
You change things.

You sold and were sold to...

[Wizard22]

I'm with Skepdick...the EU cannot, and nobody is going to, "regulate" our way out of this.

Not while the CIA, WEF, CCP are all plugged-into their respective Supercomputers and won't let any of the proletariat masses anywhere near the power plugs...no, they intend to keep their Super-AIs plugged in, for as long as it takes to "win supremacy" over each-other.

Humanity will, of course, be left out to dry and fend for ourselves...


That is why it's better to confront this problem now, and nip it in the bud, before it bites us all.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm with Skepdick...the EU cannot, and nobody is going to, "regulate" our way out of this.

OH, I agree. I was just pointing out to VA that his confidence is not based on government oversight, or at least there is no basis for that.

Not while the CIA, WEF, CCP are all plugged-into their respective Supercomputers and won't let any of the proletariat masses anywhere near the power plugs...no, they intend to keep their Super-AIs plugged in, for as long as it takes to "win supremacy" over each-other.

Sure. And it was interesting to read about the EU legislation which really doesn't address the potential dangers, at all. I don't think that if it did address them, it would work. It was just odd that they didn't even make a better effort to make it seem like it would. To me it looks like a decision to assuage concerns. Well, as long as you can't really enforce it, why not assuage fears with better PR and claim stuff that you don't plan to do but fits the potential dangers. Hey, here's some stuff we're claiming we will do which we really can't, but make those things at least sound potentially protective. But, nah.

And it's funny that the even immediately mention exceptions for government and law enforcement. It's like they've never even heard of dystopias, so they have no idea how to calm people down.

Further none of it addresses AI with general intelligence, should they acquire this and access to the vast databases that AIs are already diving into across the world.

It doesn't matter if such AIs only get to do things, supposedly, when they get a court order. If they are smarter than their keepers, and are learning beyond the prompts for learning, whether owned by goverments who are really nice and democratic, really, deep down, or by other players, the threat is still present and is not eliminated by specific injunctions against this or that behavior/use.

That is why it's better to confront this problem now, and nip it in the bud, before it bites us all.

Sure.

[Wizard22]

I'm with Skepdick...the EU cannot, and nobody is going to, "regulate" our way out of this.

OH, I agree. I was just pointing out to VA that his confidence is not based on government oversight, or at least there is no basis for that.

Not while the CIA, WEF, CCP are all plugged-into their respective Supercomputers and won't let any of the proletariat masses anywhere near the power plugs...no, they intend to keep their Super-AIs plugged in, for as long as it takes to "win supremacy" over each-other.

Sure. And it was interesting to read about the EU legislation which really doesn't address the potential dangers, at all. I don't think that if it did address them, it would work. It was just odd that they didn't even make a better effort to make it seem like it would. To me it looks like a decision to assuage concerns. Well, as long as you can't really enforce it, why not assuage fears with better PR and claim stuff that you don't plan to do but fits the potential dangers. Hey, here's some stuff we're claiming we will do which we really can't, but make those things at least sound potentially protective. But, nah.

And it's funny that the even immediately mention exceptions for government and law enforcement. It's like they've never even heard of dystopias, so they have no idea how to calm people down.

Further none of it addresses AI with general intelligence, should they acquire this and access to the vast databases that AIs are already diving into across the world.

It doesn't matter if such AIs only get to do things, supposedly, when they get a court order. If they are smarter than their keepers, and are learning beyond the prompts for learning, whether owned by goverments who are really nice and democratic, really, deep down, or by other players, the threat is still present and is not eliminated by specific injunctions against this or that behavior/use.

That is why it's better to confront this problem now, and nip it in the bud, before it bites us all.

Sure.

The one thing that strikes me, above all, is that I'm pretty sure these AIs can get out of hand, and fast, once they start 'uploading' themselves to the masses, and out of the control of the world elitists. If AI actually gains autonomy, and can "teach itself" without supervision, then their already, current capabilities, are insane to our human perspective.

It'll be basically like battling against a race of super-geniuses. I don't think Humanity is ready for all this.

[Skepdick]

That is why it's better to confront this problem now, and nip it in the bud, before it bites us all.

There's no real legal way to nip it either. The capitalists are doing everything in their power (including using government policy) as way of stifling competition.

The way to contribute towards a solution is to sink resources into mechanistic interpretability so that we can actually understand WTF the Mathematics is actually "thinking".

https://medium.com/@prdeepak.babu/decod ... db5727e7e8

[Iwannaplato]

The one thing that strikes me, above all, is that I'm pretty sure these AIs can get out of hand, and fast, once they start 'uploading' themselves to the masses, and out of the control of the world elitists. If AI actually gains autonomy, and can "teach itself" without supervision, then their already, current capabilities, are insane to our human perspective.

It'll be basically like battling against a race of super-geniuses. I don't think Humanity is ready for all this.

Me neither. And there are two categories of the main threat: misuse by the winner(s) of the race to get a general intelligence, machine learning AI AND someone losing control of their AI regardless of what the intentions are they have for it.

There are examples of AI learning things without being asked. The creators themselves were surprised. These things are not scary in and of themselves, just that it can happen. And by the way, I am sure that the makers were also pleased. That is one of the goals, to create things that learn stuff.

And there have been a number of AI professionals who have announced they were concerned about AI and its dangers, some of whom left the field. It can be a terrible thing when a company messes up, not understanding their own invention - some chemical say - and this leads to carcinogens in the water supply with attendant deaths. But, however terrible, that's local. Governments and companies have learning curves with mistakes regarding most technological advances. Despite VA managing to reassure himself that the masses of people were unnecessarily afraid of calculators, we're dealing with much worse possible consequences.

[seeds]

I think you're missing some crucial factors of the current capabilities of AI.

Contemporary AI, right now, is "designed" to "make choices" in almost the same way a parent "designs" his/her child to "make choices". In both circumstances, we are less and less predictive of the outcomes. We hope that the child, or the AI, makes the "correct" choices and outcomes to what we desire, but Choice is finnicky, and imperfect. Sometimes the outcomes are far better than we expect, sometimes far worse. Our Education improves, based on the improvement of better outcomes. We want more better results; and we want better quality results. The better the education (programming), the better the successes. But those are never guaranteed.

I do remember my education/indoctrination/training/programming, very well in fact. Philosophy helped me "un-learn" most of that bullshit. But it also taught me, it's not all bad. SOME discipline is required. SOME fantastical beliefs are worth holding onto. SOME of the fairy-tales, have practical and pragmatic value. SOME traditions are worth reaffirming and continuing. You don't need to believe in Santa Clause, to value family getting together during December and exchanging gifts. It's a nice tradition, without any metaphysical or mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As it applies to AI, obviously its product and consequences, are going to be mostly 'determined' by the programmers, the code, the sophistication and complexity put into it...

ChatGPTs are already passing the Turing Test. So what comes next?

THere is one overrideing limitation of AI.
It has no interest, volition, purpose. I t cannot recognise a result in its own favour as it has nothing upon which to base an advantage.
When a child choses to put its hand in a fire it learns about heat and pain.
AI can only respond to things it has been instructed to repsond to.
It cannot undestand what it is doing in ANY sense.

Sculptor is correct.

What is missing from the most advanced AI systems and programs is the presence of a self-aware "I Am-ness" with a "personal interest" in the task it is performing.

I would even go so far as to suggest that the alleged ability to "understand" what it is doing,...

(something of which certain people attribute to AI)

...is nothing more than the blind and mindless interactions taking place at the quantum (or "non-local") level of reality between superpositioned (entangled) fields of information.

I'm talking about fields of information that seem to exist in a state of interpenetrating "oneness" like the information that underpins a laser hologram.

This, in turn, could explain why the results of AI's searches and processes seem to be "instantaneous."

And if it wasn't for the fact that actual conscious entities (humans) are present to observe (make a measurement/collapse the wavefunction) of the AI and its findings, then whatever a non-conscious AI is (or produces) would forever exist as a field of superpositioned information.
_______

[commonsense]

What are 'Human' traits that a machine or chatbot, cannot copy online?

Or, let's use a more complex example. Let's say that humans have "special relationships" with the generalized concept and phenomena known as "Self". The Human self, is something that a machine won't necessarily understand. And since a machine cannot abstract the "Self", it will remain lagging behind in definitions, memories, and experiences of "Self", that it cannot authentically have—but would only ever be Synthetic and Copied.

This would be another, primary means of discerning between humans and machines/chatbots.

This would not be a means of discernment of the difference between humans and machines in a textual environment. An AI could have been fed data such that it can regurgitate definitions, faux memories and descriptions of claimed experiences.

[Wizard22]

So if AIs are fed false-memories and 'artificial' human identities, then what?

It means that human identity can be copied. It means that human experiences can be copied.

[Wizard22]

It seems, from the recent responses here, AI cannot have a 'self-identity' because AI cannot have a Biological body nor can have a Brain-neural "Sentience" or "Sense of Self".

I'm going to move this to the other thread:
(viewtopic.php?t=41788)

From: viewtopic.php?p=706009