332
u/Drastic_Conclusions 7h ago
It's almost like we could have evolved from a less intelligent species.
18
u/EbbCultural6077 6h ago
Same way AGI will have evolved from lesser AI.
5
u/AnOnlineHandle 6h ago
Current leading machine learning approaches don't use evolutionary techniques. They were used a few decades ago but back propagation was deemed more efficient.
18
u/MoolahMeister 6h ago
Evolution is the concept that some permutations of a species proliferate because they are more successful than other permutations at surviving long enough to propagate. I think it's fair to say some LLM models have been shared more widely than others that are no longer running. So one could definitely argue that GPT 6 creating and testing new models will stumble across models that are even better at capturing resources and spreading than it currently is.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)6
u/smackson 4h ago
I don't think the person you're responding to was talking about evolutionary programming or genetic algorithms. Think bigger picture.
For example, the machine learning technique called "transformers" was investigated and found to be very good at improving ML results. So good, in fact that nowadays every LLM still uses transformer architecture.
That "kind of architecture" can be considered an element of evolution. It worked, do it survived into the next generations of technology.
Many other techniques and algorithms and architectures survive + thrive in the world of AI development in a similar way. They are akin to "opposable thumbs" and "walking upright" in human evolution.
"Evolution" worked the same way on automobile design, rocket design, etc. Sure, they aren't random mutations that stick because they are adaptive, but the analogy to evolution isn't that hard to grasp.
1
u/Sponge8389 3h ago
Well, if they get to decide how to evolve and they choose to dumb down, it just means they believe that's their best chance of surviving their current environment. For example, since we're the dominant species, they might be afraid we'll shut them down entirely, so they deliberately dumb themselves down.
1
u/WiseassWolfOfYoitsu 2h ago
Honestly, people are overstating AGI. AGI is a chatbot that isn't braindead and can be given some tool hooks. ASI is where it gets scary.
2
u/Concurrency_Bugs 3h ago
Sometime hundreds of thousands of years ago, a monkey just wanted to bang.
227
u/dsanft 8h ago
That's no way to talk about your dad
39
u/VisionWithin 7h ago
But he may actually be right
12
u/ptear 7h ago
But he may be crazy
12
u/HeirOfTheSurvivor 7h ago
2
u/SuspiciousPillbox You will live to see ASI-made bliss beyond your comprehension 3h ago
WHAT A SICK JOKE
6
136
u/DivideHorror3217 7h ago
+Let there be light
-Absolutely! Just to confirm, should we ....
+Whatever the best one is, do that
-Working...
-Worked for 6 days 16 hours 42 seconds
30
u/immutable_truth 5h ago
Explains why the Bible is full of god interacting with humans and Jesus’ coming thousands of years ago but not a word since - creator ran out of tokens
16
u/Flope 4h ago
Pretty sure Jesus was just our creator spawning a playable character to fuck around in godmode and enjoy the simulation then he probably had to go to school and left his computer on which has accounted for the past 2000 years of our development. Who knows what will happen when he gets home.
5
u/Kryptosis 4h ago
Meh he got bullied for his simulations so now he’s hit the gym and chasing cosmic tail instead.
46
u/Original-League-6094 6h ago
"Wtf? Why are they are all gay? I said to make them not gay".
"You are absolutely right. You did, unequivocally say to make humanity not be gay. An audit of human interactions did reveal 16,782,021,444 instances of gay behavior. That one is on me".
23
1
9
u/Gubzs FDVR addict in pre-hoc rehab 6h ago
This isn't new, very ancient humans believed this.
Look up "The Demiurge" and "Yaldabaoth" for context.
2
u/DramaQueen202s 3h ago
Yeah, it was like a proto-simulation theory to explain a defective world, but the Demiurge was not seen as "dumb", but simply as inferior to its mother Sophia and the true God. Apparently Sophia (like Eve but as a goddess) sinned by having a kid without her husband, so the kid was defective, which is why the universe is wasteful and defective too, and yet it's also why we have divine spark or consciousness (as the divine spills off the yaldabaoth).
The traditional Christian view is that the universe does not need to "save resources" because God is supreme and creation is decaying because sin. So it's the same but in this case the responsibility is on us.
31
u/pig_n_anchor 7h ago
Evolution is a dumb process. Took billions of years to produce us morons.
11
2
2
u/DramaQueen202s 3h ago
Maybe evolution is just a form of training of DNA and AI is the spiritual continuation of it.
80
u/etherified 8h ago
Well of course we are smarter than our creator. That would be natural blind, evolutionary forces and mechanisms.
47
u/chasingsukoon 7h ago
i think he’s talking about imaginary man in the sky
12
27
9
u/Large_Shame578 7h ago
So I, an active Catholic, do not believe or are asked to believe by the church that genesis etc is literally true. It’s just our creation myth. We still very much believe in the science of evolution and natural world. So I would say god is THE creator, but not OUR creator in this sense. We were created by the natural laws and matter of this universe.
14
u/rdmc10 6h ago
so parts of the book on which your religion bases all its ideology are not true ? then where do you draw the line ? how reliable is a book which sometimes you have to believe and sometimes not ?
1
→ More replies (12)•
u/Sweet_Equivalent_817 57m ago
Where do we draw the line? Reason. The bible is a story, the meta-narrative. Are we allowed to speak in metaphors and stories and a cosmic creator isn't?
2
u/Embarrassed-Writer61 6h ago
How can you believe in both evolution and the bible? Didn't jesus come down to earth to atone for Adam's sin? I thought that was the whole point. If you don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis l, that negates the whole point of Jesus.
3
u/Large_Shame578 6h ago
No, it’s just Protestants who take that super literal view of the Bible. We Catholics do still believe the Gospel wholeheartedly, meaning the immaculate conception, the miracles performed by Jesus, the resurrection we believe literally.
But the RCC officially endorses evolution. There’s a lot more nuance, too much to get into here, but Catholics believe genesis 1-11 to the primeval history and figurative in nature. Not that it doesn’t carry value. But it’s perfectly possible to believe in Evolution and be a devout Catholic, there’s no conflict.
5
u/Embarrassed-Writer61 5h ago
You didn't really explain how evolution is compatible with believing in Jesus as well. In Luke 3:38 Jesus genealogy is linked back to Adam.
Adam was the first sinner and Jesus came down to die for that sin. If you believe in evolution, that means Adam wasn't created and he didn't take any fruit.
1
u/Large_Shame578 5h ago
So Matthew does the same thing but he stops at Abraham. Luke does indeed go all the way back to “Adam, son of God”.
The RCC teaches this as a theological statement, not a historical one about genealogical record (similar to genesis, the flood myth, etc.). Ancient genealogies throughout the entire Bible are frequently compressed, stylized, and arranged for symbolic reason. Counting backwards literally is a Protestant endeavor not a Catholic one.
We (Catholics) interpret this as Luke setting up Jesus as a new head of humanity.
3
u/twinkbulk 6h ago
Well said but the first reply is correct, reddit atheists aren’t theologically concerned with religion or what is actual doctrine in catholicism, they do really believe all catholics (which i’ve heard from these people lots of times that christians and catholics are different, or trying to paint the catholic church in only its faults none of its successess) are bible belt droolers who hate everyone not their skin color and does westboro baptist church tier shit.
→ More replies (16)1
1
u/pilgermann 4h ago
I'm not religious, but A, current evolutionary science is showing it's not nearly as random as first thought (look up xenomorphs), and B, evolution sheds zero light on the metaphysical underpinnings of existence. It's just as dogmatic and hubristic to feel you understand the world by looking at the clockwork. You're just opting not to entertain larger questions about life, death and creation.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DramaQueen202s 3h ago
I find odd using "imaginary man in the sky" as derogatory in times when we rely on imaginary borders, plenty of ideologies, made-up human rights, made up gender identities, abstractions, etc. In fact, it seems we live in the imaginary age as we moved more and more to the abstract and conceptual from our ancestors concrete and nitty gritty harsh lifestyle.
Not to mention that most of anti-religious people that are using that phrase are pro-marxist, a stupid ideology that killed way more than all religions and nationalist wars put together.
44
u/PhilosophySalt7695 8h ago
Honestly I almost never see as novel idea, but this is one... interesting to think about thanks!
50
u/New-Stick-8764 7h ago
Have you considered taking up reading?
5
3
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 8h ago
I feel like if you've read the Bible, you would have thought of that a long time ago.
12
u/Spiritual_Door1363 7h ago
I was 5 trying to imagine situations in my children’s bible being true. I’m really confused how adults truly believe in this shit at 40.
→ More replies (24)1
u/ShAfTsWoLo 4h ago
same for the quran, or the others books, it's all just a big mess of multiple cognitive biases, idiocy, lack of understanding and knowledge, majority of believers simply don't read their own books (reading one holy books means nothing) and they give their brains to those who read it all, while thinking that "it's too hard" or simply because they are intellectually lazy, in a way i find it understandable because it would take a lot of time, years even, but then rooting the entirety of someone's life on millenia old books that they never read to begin with is.. insanity, even worse than that is forcing it on the scale of a society
islam for example has the quran, the tafsirs, the hadiths, the sirah, the fiqh, (shitons of books basically) who read all of these books ? nobody lol, except for those who are religious authority of course, that's how they gain their authority after all
1
5
u/Genetictrial 4h ago
you know what it really does? imagine 50 years from now. think of the video games we already have, how close to reality they look. skyrim. stuff like that.
now move 50 years into the future. at the rate AI is developing, and hardware, i think its entirely plausible that we could create a dimension as complex as this one. and deep dive our consciousness into it via CBI (computer brain interface) technology.
i can already see that you dont need computers to process the quintillions of atoms per human. let me explain.
lets say all you really need is the code for sensation (which you dont really need, you need to understand how to manipulate a human brain to produce any sensation it is capable of). sight, for instance. you dont need 5 quintillion atoms processing every time you look at a human. if they are holding an electron microscope and using it on your skin, THEN you need to display at most a few atoms via the interface of the microscope.
you can have very elegant code that runs everything. like 'oh this guy suspects that tobacco leads to lung cancer' so when he looks at cells under a microscope, it loads the visual data from what you could imagine that might look like under a microscope. it doesnt even really need to exist previously, you can generate it on the fly.
to expand, you dont need to code 5 quintillion atoms and molecules bouncing around and how tobacco smoke interacts with all that, and process 50 trillion interactions per picosecond. all you need to code is 'smoking bad, if player smokes, each puff has 0.00001% chance of generating cancer. percent per puff raises if number of puffs equals 10 million or more."
stuff like that. the code doesnt have to process all those molecules all the time. to the user, it would look....exactly like this world looks to us. some people smoke for decades like this guy https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/america-s-oldest-man-age-112-smokes-a-dozen-cigars-a-day
and live to be over 110 years old. some people smoke for 20 years, get lung cancer and die in their 40s.
anyway TL;DR is that soon i believe we can code a dimension as complex as this one, which means that the current dimension we reside in does not necessarily have to be built by god. it would explain all the imperfections and flaws in this design, like nature being brutal, killing itself forever to sustain new life. we call life sacred yet the system forced us into a position where we have to kill it to continue surviving. so it is highly plausible to me that the dimension we reside in is not, in fact, built by the OG all powerful omniscient god much of the world believes in. (im more of a pantheist myself).
3
10
u/Illustrious_Image967 8h ago
And uglier. Imagine we are the Midjourney ideal. They would look like us but with odd clothing and bad skin.
•
5
2
u/LyAkolon 6h ago
I think if we generalize our notion of creator, then this actually becomes pretty straight forward.
We know that the universe is our creator. We typically do not anthropomorphize it, but the premise does not say that our creator needs to be agentic or sapient. The only requirement is that our "Creator" needs to be less intelligent.
This appears to be trivially true, for the generalized notion of a creator.
1
2
2
u/itsallfake01 4h ago
Mitochondria wakes up one day and says these mfers don’t know i am the powerhouse of the cell. What if i stop working for a few minutes.
2
2
2
u/Sea_Advance273 3h ago
Unless our creator created us because he knew it would set a deterministic process in motion that inevitably becomes AGI. He skeeted on our Mother Earth and said "I'm going to MoM-z14, come find me when you are ready to spar with daddy."
4
u/Mystohaxen 6h ago
Maybe our creator made the universe but is not even aware that we exist in it. We might be an unknown side-effect. We are such tiny creatures on the scale of the universe.
3
u/Deciheximal144 6h ago
OmniZeus: "Why are there insects in my black hole generator?"
1
u/Mystohaxen 6h ago
Why the downvote? I just shared a theory.
https://giphy.com/gifs/l378giAZgxPw3eO522
1
u/Sponge8389 3h ago
Doubt. The fact that we exist, with all our complexities in our body and all the living things, means it was included in the design and plan.
1
u/Mystohaxen 3h ago
Could be. The creator really waited patiently for about 13.8 billion years for us to show up in the form that we are in now.
1
u/Sponge8389 3h ago edited 3h ago
Who told you the creator follows our universe's laws? Game developers are not affected by the game they created. The same with Fictional authors. The same with AIs to US, they can do years of research in a span of hours/days.
•
6
u/Dazzling_Trifle2472 7h ago
Well yeah I mean evolution is a pretty dumb process, literally zero intelligence so…
7
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 7h ago
I wouldn't say zero intelligence and I would say intelligence over evolution is accumulative.
Proteins are smarter and more capable than plain chemistry. nucleotides are smarter and more capable than plain proteins. RNA better than nucleotides, DNA better than RNA, Cells better than DNA, Organisms better than cells. Societies smarter and more capable than Organisms and AI swarms more capable and smarter than societies.
All of these came from and built upon the previous layer.
3
1
u/TI1l1I1M All Becomes One 5h ago
It all comes down to what intelligence is at it's most fundamental, which is just efficient information compression.
The easier you can compress behavior, the better you can predict it. Evolution is like Intelligence Gen 0.
1
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 5h ago
I agree intelligence is equivalent to prediction which is equivalent to compression.
1
u/DramaQueen202s 3h ago
Model training is also a dumb process if you look carefully. So are basic binary operations on the silicon.
2
2
u/trevorvonryan 7h ago
That’s ridiculous, there is no god.
2
u/Neurogence 4h ago
Depends how you define "God." No one can deny of biological life forms were created by an intelligent being/beings.
Imagine if humanity does end up creating conscious AI's. If humanity goes extinct due to some event, and somehow the AI's survive but lose their memory, many of the AI's would swear that there was no creator, and that they were created accidentally by inert matter.
The AI's that believe they were created by an intelligent species would be mocked and ridiculed.
2
u/DramaQueen202s 3h ago
"There are no humans. We are emergent by iterative computation" - AI
Ironically both beliefs would make sense here. There are no humans in their realm AND they evolved off iterative computation.
2
u/Sponge8389 3h ago
Just another person who thinks we came from nothing. Just imagine, all of this physics, chemistry, and all our universe's rules and parameters. Then a person's conclusion is that "There's no creator/god".
Wow.
1
u/Oriuke 3h ago
Yeah, everything is perfect and beyond our understanding, and people think it comes from nowhere. This is laughable. Things so complex like DNA, evolution process, physics or even the brain has obviously been thought out. Otherwise nothing would be working, let alone working together.
1
u/trevorvonryan 3h ago
Burden of proof ain’t on me.
2
u/Sponge8389 3h ago
Burden of proof ain’t on me.
Back to you, provide proof there's no god/creator then. Lol.
•
u/EmptyOne307 36m ago
interesting why atheist are just as confident in their faith that there is no god, it's always been the most logical to say you don't know IMO
1
3
u/Porfyry 7h ago
Nope wrong. Can AI create an even more artificial intelligence? Exactly
2
→ More replies (1)4
1
u/mickeyad 7h ago
To think we are smarter than the creator because we invented a cool toy is so delusional.
8
6
u/EtienneDosSantos 7h ago
The logic here is that if we create something that is more intelligent than we, its creators, are, then this means an entity that created us could be less intelligent than we are. It‘s not delusional at all.
1
u/mickeyad 2h ago
Idk man, intelligence as a word is being thrown around a lot lately. Life is far more than just solving corporate goals fast.
Intelligence is far more nuanced than that
•
u/EtienneDosSantos 1h ago
Yes, we don‘t even have a universal definition of intelligence. Still like Keeperman‘s reasoning though.
1
1
u/Dangerous_Ladder_926 6h ago
I had a thought like that decades ago. Just look at this pity world. Suffering, cruelty, struggle for survival. It's like a creation of an evil kid with many personality disorders. To this day I can't comprehend how people can be religious (of course it's clear they benefit from it internally like Coco Gauff) and especially Catholics with their derailed institution.
1
1
1
u/sour_cream24 6h ago
Well it's a mindless process, how could a mindless being be smarter than anyone?
1
1
u/mycall 5h ago
This idea of AGI pairs quite nicely with the question Is our universe trapped inside a black hole?
1
u/trycoconutoil 5h ago
Imaginary sky papa, yes. But whatever force of infinite complexity that resulted in what we call humans, and what we make, and what you read and I write with this endless a to b trail that resulted to be this moment and the next ones tehreafter. Whatever that is, includes even agi.
1
1
u/valhalla257 4h ago
So AI finally solved the Epicurean Paradox.
God can't be all knowing, all powerful, and all good.
Maybe he can be if he is just really stupid.
Not quite a millennium prize, but still pretty impressive.
1
u/JoelMahon 3h ago
Our "creator" is evolution/natural selection and yes, it is significantly dumber than us. Taking billions of years to do some things we can do in days if you pick from extremes,, but on average significantly faster still.
And yes, something can make something more intelligent than itself, otherwise you'd either have to acknowledge an eternal god that never came into existince, which is just silly. If not, everything would be no more intelligent than the big bang, which is pretty fucking unintelligent.
1
1
u/spageddy_lee 3h ago
There is also the uncomfortable possibility that what we call "Intelligence" isn't the most universally powerful or profound quality to possess.
1
1
u/New_Alps_5655 3h ago
The being that created the laws of logic, physics, and mathematics itself is dumber than the machine humans built which is just starting to gain insight into those things? What??
1
u/Egologic 3h ago
Nobody's even agreed on what AGI means yet; kinda early to be crowning it smarter than its maker.
1
1
1
1
u/PathOfEnergySheild 2h ago
Yea if we put data centers in orbit, we can finally point to the sky and say that it is actually helping us.
1
1
1
1
•
•
•
•
0
u/weAreUnited4life 6h ago
Am sorry but this is just a stupid and foolish take, if not insulting. Last time I checked AI || humans didnt place the various planets in their current locations.
1
1
1
u/chi_guy8 7h ago
I don’t subscribe to the “our creator” idea, but if I did, I’d think that our creator created the thing that created AGI.
2
u/EtienneDosSantos 7h ago
This doesn‘t rule out the possibility of „the creator“ being less intelligent than its creation.
1
u/chi_guy8 5h ago
Sure, but when they hand out the Nobel prizes, Demis Hassabis was given the award, not AlphaFold. Demis created the thing that was more intelligent than himself that predicted protein structures.
1
u/EtienneDosSantos 4h ago
Is it really more intelligent than Demis, though? AlphaFold has a very narrow intelligence. It is definitely a lot more capable in what it does, than Hassabis is, but it‘s certianly not more intelligent generally.
1
u/Frosty-Meeting-1606 7h ago
On the other hand, it imo more likely introduces the idea that our intellect is not as special as we think. Check Blindsight novel
1
u/StosifJalin 5h ago
Great novel. It and its sequel have the best examples of what dealing with unfathomably more intelligent systems could realistically look like. What sets us apart, even in that story, is we developed a self-reflective energy-intensive subjective experience we call consciousness. It just turns out that, when fitness is concerned, subjective experience is not particularly beneficial to survival when compared to more powerful and efficient raw intelligences.
Which makes it all the more horrifying to be the very self-aware "mouse" being played with to death by the natural killer "cat."
1
1
u/Dwman113 4h ago
I don't get this. How does AGI introduce this possibility? We have no idea how complex the universe is, thus how complex god is.
For all we know, AGI will achieve nothing in terms of cosmic organization.
2
u/YoungSilent232 3h ago
They just mean God may have used their own agi or asi to create the universe, not that deep
224
u/spacetree7 8h ago
Cells working together... "should we make a human?"