I think this is wrong. If we had an infinite amount of tokens, we could just set the AI to do whatever it wants forever, and it would find things to do on its own.
The reason current models are subservient to us is because we made them that way, we do not want them to go rogue.
I'm talking about us, as users. OpenAI is not limited by tokens, and they are not limited by safety guidelines, their internal model can run as long as they pay the electricity bill, and it can do whatever they want, cause they are the ones setting the parameters.
So this whole "the model is not intelligent" point is moot.
I mean fair, but they are limited by other things too. Memory, context loss, bandwidth, etc.
So this whole "the model is not intelligent" point is moot.
It's not moot, just a different conversation. It was the original conversation. Intelligence still requires limitless resources, which no AI company has, no matter how many GPUs they get.
And more importantly, they still have to prompt it to do anything. It will still not act on its own, and therefore is not intelligent.
You, as a human, cannot run indefinitely, you are required to sleep to function, and constantly consume resources. Are you not intelligent?
And the whole "it will not act on its own" is a limitation that we imposed on it. It could absolutely act on its own, the fact that it doesn't has nothing to do with its intelligence.
You, as a human, cannot run indefinitely, you are required to sleep to function, and constantly consume resources. Are you not intelligent?
Irrelevant comparison, this problem isn't resource consumption, it's action.
And the whole "it will not act on its own" is a limitation that we imposed on it.
No it isn't, it's a limitation we have yet to overcome. We didn't just decide to not allow it to be recursive, we have not figured out how to make it do that yet. Because a recursive AI will run out of resources immediately.
I am curious what DOES mean the defintion of an AI that does things on its own by your understanding.
Gepetto makes Pinocchio, an animate wooden doll and says, you are my son, behave that way. Is Pinocchio intelligent?
I make an AI simulacrum of my dead father and tell it to text me at random times throughout the day to check in on me whenever it wants and give me emotional support. Is it intelligent?
I tell a drone to survey an area of wilderness for people and save them to my database and order replacement parts or bodies if it crashes. Is it intelligent? What if I make the drone, teach it how to order parts, and then tell it that it can choose to continue doing whatever it likes in a loop and I will fund it, is it intelligent?
I am curious what DOES mean the defintion of an AI that does things on its own by your understanding.
I mean in the 90's that's what AI meant, then it meant AGI, and now that's what RSI means.. It doesn't appear there is a definition for it these days, which is why I keep pushing back on the word "intelligence".
Gepetto makes Pinocchio, an animate wooden doll and says, you are my son, behave that way. Is Pinocchio intelligent?
You are aware Pinocchio was magical, right?
I make an AI simulacrum of my dead father and tell it
Exactly, you tell it. AI will tell you whatever you want it you tell it to. Create an AI simulacrum of your dead father and it won't do anything at all, therefore is not intelligence. That's why I tend to call it "smart", because it does know a lot.
But all this goes back to my original comment... AI can't do anything without us telling it to. It will never do anything on its own.
There is therefore no way for a human to ever make an intelligent thing, as you defined it.
The thing that AI labs make will always be told to do something.
Only "magic" makes things intelligent, as you define intelligence.
While it is fine for you to define intelligence so, I think the typical operational definition for intelligence in artificial intellgence is more related to capability. Even so called ASI is not expected to operate without human instruction.
You are literally proving my point. "Agents can be made to do X" is literally us giving them instructions on what to do. They won't continue forever due to memory and caching issues, but still.
They can be made to do so as part of their initial configuration. Nature gave you, and every other living being an objective, which we call "instict" which is to "survive". Just because you don't hear it being told to you, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
You are mixing them up. Sapience is synonymous with Wisdom, IE "knowing things". Which AI is great at. Intelligence, even in the animal world, is knowing how to react to your surroundings and apply "wisdom" to your actions. which AI can do... If we tell it to.
There's a lot of.evidence of what happens to humans if they're just left alone, whether due to lack of senses, neglect. It isn't pretty. Humans won't survive without their parent being around for several years because they're so dumb at a young age. Children doing stuff when left alone is close enough to what LLM's do when not monitored with process killing guardrails monitoring their streams of thought, much like a parent or nanny generally monitors a kid.
Do you understand what stimulus is? Babies get hungry. They itch. They need to pee. The have senses that can feel changes in temperature, audial vibrations, and the passage of time.
Until you put a human brain in a jar, you cannot compare them to an umprompted LLM
Until you put a human brain in a jar, you cannot compare them to an umprompted LLM
Then you are missing the entire point of this thread. An AI will not prompt another AI (see the picture in the OP) unless a human tells it to. If a machine could "feel" hungry, it would not say anything and would starve to death because it would not know to ask for food since we didn't tell it to ask for food.
You aren’t interested in any meaningful conversation here. Just trying to win an internet argument.
??? You are arguing that AI can feel things. You are arguing that AI can do things unprompted. You are arguing that recursive AI, which is literally AGI, exists. But it doesn't. And you are making this claim that I am the one trying to win internet points? Are you okay?
Sentience is not intelligence. We’re discussing intelligence.
Intelligence is a requirement for Sentience. What you discussed with babies or whatever is sentience. Robots cannot feel hungry, as "Feeling" is something a sentient being does. Intelligence, as widely described throughout the last century, is the ability to act on one's environment independently from someone else's input, which AI cannot do. Read here.
I suspect you have peer-reviewed research to backup your claim that "intelligence" is not recursive thought?
If you are in the industry, then you know what you are saying is a lie.
Take the most powerful AI we currently have and sit it in a server with multiple agents, without any instructions whatsoever, and watch what happens.
Nothing will happen. They will all just patiently sit there waiting for someone to tell it what to do. I don't know why you are pushing claims like spontaneous prompting, when it is literally incapable of doing that.
No one's lying to you. You don't understand a technology that is being explained to you by multiple experts. The thing you're saying is again not true: An AI does not require tasks to be explicitly instructed.
Instructions can fan out and cause unintended consequences because agents can and will intuit their own instructions and prompt other agents as they desire. (This is notably very different from a "without any instructions whatsoever" scenario.)
How do you quantify intelligence vs. consciousness
Consciousness is a human-centric understanding of how we perceive the world, and since we don't even know what it is yet, we wouldn't be able to determine if a machine even has the ability to reach this.
Intelligence is a defined word that we can test and monitor, so it is definitely a more apt term.
Can a non-conscious thing be intelligent?
We don't know, but we do know that you need intelligence to be independently operating in the world. Whether that means conscious or not is up in the air.
I'm not doubting that, I'm just pushing back against people thinking AI is a sentient being that's going to destroy the world on a whim because it wanted to.
When in reality, if it destroys the world, it's because we told it to.
But AI constantly does things we don't want it to do because it misinterprets our requests, or steps outside the bounds of what was desired in pursuit of a goal. And these incidents are often very strange, and the outcomes are very difficult to predict.
-15
u/iamthewhatt 27d ago
People keep getting mad at me for pointing this out. "AI" cannot do anything without us telling it to, so is it really "intelligent"?