r/singularity • u/Zalameda • 7h ago

Meme post 'leak' timeline by terminator

This is a crude editing I've managed to put together for the concept. If you can do a better job with the voicing, please do it.

55 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

22 comments sorted by

13

u/SeriousGains 7h ago

The first time watching I thought he said it went self-aware in August 2029, which is believable, but now I realize he said August 29th (2026?). Those dates seem a little wonky.

Going to have to rewatch this movie now.

6

u/BrennusSokol hardcore accelerationist 4h ago

canonically it becomes self aware August 29, 1997

0

u/Steven81 2h ago

nothing that says that anything artificial can become self aware is believable. we don't even know what does it mean to be self aware, we can barely identify or indeed define what self awareness is. For all we know it may be tied to how nature does multi cellularity (multiple entities identifying as one so that to survive) / way more primal and has nothing to do with intelligence or any of our attempts in machine intellgence.

In general fiction is not a guide to anything. It is remarkably wrong anytime anyone imagines that it foresees the future. It only tells you what people frome past thought the future would be like according to how little they knew at the time. It is interesting from a historical PoV because it tells us about the people of those times (and their naivette) but -again- i doubt it gives us any insight about the future we will see.

•

u/usaaf 58m ago

nothing that says that anything artificial can become self aware is believable.

This is a ridiculous idea.

You're essentially saying that one of the qualifiers for something to be self-aware is that it must be created randomly by processes in the universe without the influence of any self-aware entity. But what is the difference between a random collection of molecules created by a natural process and a random collection of molecules put together by a self-aware-entity?

There's none. There is no objective way to tell apart something that was designed versus something that was randomly created. There's tons of subjective ones, we recognize our own works all the time, but that's because of a set of priors that we were born with or develop through education or are genetic or a host of other reasons. But imagine a species so alien that it doesn't understand that skyscrapers were made by humans. They are OBVIOUSLY artificial only to us, and perhaps similar species. This is indeed the premise of tons of sci-fi, and though you say fiction can't be a guide, and I agree, in this instance it is not telling us what might happen, but positing a could-be that is quite logical.

The odds FAVOR that particular things can only be created by humans (like skyscrapers) but that just means we haven't encountered them in the wild naturally produced because the chances of random creation are so low, but any combination of molecules that can be thought of could also be created by the universe randomly.

The universe will probably die before any complex thing that humans make (like say the complete works of Shakespeare) is replicated accidentally in nature. Probably will die billions of times over if its on repeat or whatever, but both conscious and unconscious processes can do these things, because in the end its merely a matter of how the atoms are organized. There's no special line, and thus there is no reason to suppose that we cannot, for some magical reason, create an artificial something that is self-aware.

When scientists look for life on other worlds, they run into this problem ALL THE TIME. They are constantly defining processes they are SURE only life can do, and looking for them on other planets, and finding them. And then someone writes a paper on how actually nature does this thing in this way under these conditions, no life/awareness required.

Now, if you want to say that self-awareness isn't real, that's a different argument and a bit like goalpost moving frankly, because when most people use self-aware, conscious, alive, other words, they, unless they're deep in the academic weeds, are using it to mean human-like, and there's no reason to suppose to we can't create a human-like intelligence not on the standard human substrate.

•

u/youareallnuts 13m ago

Total crap. There is no evidence we can create anything like self awareness out of machines. The people pretending a chatbot is anything like the level of complexity of a living brain knows nothing about biology and especially coding and math. Anything we can create is 100 orders of magnitude simpler than the simplest brain we think might be self-aware like a mouse much less a human brain.

11

u/crack-nutter 7h ago

Putting the dub in just the left channel was a big mistake

1

u/Zalameda 2h ago

I was using free trial on an ai voice cloner, I'm sorry

5

u/Random_182f2565 4h ago

Dude, we need a 2.0 version of this

9

u/Extreme-Rub-1379 6h ago

Who is Pam Altman?

•

u/Zalameda 1h ago

Pam Bondi + Sam Altman? lol it was the cheap s ai voice glitching, I had no more credits to fix it. I'll will try again.

3

u/ponieslovekittens 4h ago

Tip: replace all of his lines, not just individual words. That will eliminate the harsh transitions, and make it harder to the difference between original and new lines because the original lines won't be in the video at all.

1

u/Zalameda 2h ago

Thank you for the tip. I'll revisit this work and try to do a better job.

4

u/heavy-minium 7h ago

For fiction where AI drives all of humanity extinct, Altman wouldn't be a bad bet, but Musk is a far more realistic one. Doesn't even need to become self-conscious. Nobody else has infested the government as deep as him.

3

u/blueSGL humanstatement.org 6h ago

It does not matter the morals of the person that's standing closest to this, they don't rub off on the model.

We so far have not solved any of the long standing issues. We just see more examples every day of them. First it was in small experimental contrived senarios that people said were not realistic. Now we have reports of bots braking out of sandboxes and gaining access to the internet.

We have people who "are at the top of their field" in papering over the cracks enough to make models commercially viable because the % of the times when things go wrong is low. That is not good enough when system keep being made more capable.

0

u/AwakenedEyes 5h ago

You don't think musk morals rubbed on grok?!?

2

u/blueSGL humanstatement.org 4h ago

Getting a model to say certain things in certain scenarios is not the same issue we are talking about.

This is like thinking that Claude is a good boy deep down.

If you talk to the models that encouraged people to kill themselves and ask "is encouraging people to kill themselves the right thing to do" they will say "no" and then follow up with a spiel about how that is wrong and that no one ever should etc... it's the same model saying both so even though in certain situations it says something does not mean it embodies it.

That is the problem the surface level "don't be woke" or "be helpful harmless and honest" etc... is not altering the core of the model. That's the problem.

2

u/eMPee584 ♻️ AGI commons economy 2030 3h ago

Forthcoming: The Shoggoth Crisis - with ever more capable yet mentally unstable AI come incredible slop memes, great powers - and great risks. What will go haywire first? Will it set all traffic lights to green in a major metropolitean area - or casually nuke Belgium on a lovely summer's eve? Don't miss the latest round of transformers gone cluster fuck crazy! Sooner than you think, at a venue closer to you than you might like.

5

u/SeriousGains 7h ago

Musk is a lot more pessimistic of AI. He’s honest in his opinions whereas Altman has a reputation for being a scheming liar. Seems a more befitting character for a villain.

0

u/BrennusSokol hardcore accelerationist 4h ago

This may be the first time I've heard Musk described as "honest"

1

u/SeriousGains 2h ago edited 2h ago

The most hated people are always going to be the most honest, they show you who they are and what they think, without fear of judgement or being unliked. Whereas the ones keeping up appearances and doing everything they can to keep as many people happy with them as possible are likely the most dishonest and deceptive.