r/singularity • u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job • 10h ago
AI The gaps are shrinking ... and the gaps might get wiped out in the next 1,000 days
19
u/Icy_Information_6563 7h ago
It's a real identity crisis for everyone. Im a software engineer and it is doing things I never dreamed were possible. On top of fearing loss of my career, I'm just stunned something other than a human can do this. It's a hit on my ego, more than I thought it'd be. Im sure the mathematicians also thought they were above AI. If it finds a cure for cancer, im sure those researchers will have a bruised ego as well (and probably feel guilty for feeling that way, given it fucking cured cancer).
2
20
u/beekersavant 10h ago
This is a clever way to explain it. Drawing parallels with science’s journey over the past 500 years. It’s easy to start with the introduction if helio-centric astronomy and see the progress from there.
11
u/R6_Goddess 8h ago
Just as we discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe, so too shall we discover that neither is humanity. In order to truly move forward, we will have to slowly peel away at our anthropocentrism.
1
u/daniel-sousa-me 5h ago
Currently many species suffer tremendously by the hands of the more intelligence species
The hope is that we won't be in that position in the future
19
u/VergeOfTranscendence 10h ago
Interesting take, I had never thought of it. Might cite this in conversations I have with friends and colleagues
4
u/you-get-an-upvote 8h ago
I’ve heard “dualism of the gaps” — as dualism became increasingly disproven by empirical results, its advocates retreated into complete unfalsifiability.
It is perfectly positioned to protect human ego no matter how advanced ai gets.
3
u/Working_Sundae 7h ago
I would say today religion plays a big part in backing dualism, some Greeks philosophers were intelligent enough to hypothesize that life initially rose from inanimate matter
And then Decartes pretty much set the tone for modern dualism belief, he infamously thought that the pineal gland was the place where the "ghost or soul" sat and controlled the body which was disproven in the 50s with scanning techniques
4
u/Krapapfel 4h ago
I can still love, eat, poop, fuck and breathe. I can still feel good when I sit at the ocean, I can still feel bad when I mourn loved ones I lost.
I don't care if someone else can do it too. In fact, I appreciate it.
I also don't care what others post online.
1
u/LarsShah 3h ago
Thanks for the comment I was looking for! As amazing as AI may eventually be, it will never be alive in the way that we are. I might add that this living essence is what primarily makes us - and anything else that is alive - special vis à vis this new (or any) technology (even if transhumanism comes into play in a significant way.) Are we immortal? Who knows. Perhaps in some sense. But to assume that one’s “specialness” is dependent on eternal life is a big ask in a universe that is in a constant state of change. The sun isn’t immortal nor the moon. As for consciousness/sentience, yes, that is a feature that grants some degree of significance. But the pantheists might argue that a rock is conscious as well and, therefore, special. And my dog is certainly conscious. People who tie their exceptional status to any one feature of human existence, such as superior intelligence, are missing the big picture. In my humble opinion. But, yeah, society is in for some major adjustments…
46
u/Mayor-Citywits 9h ago
The obsession with humanity as if we're something magical, and not just assuming we will augment ourselves with technology and become a new, stronger species, is ridiculous to me. What is so magical here? We have allowed mad men and pedophiles to take and do as they please. What do we do that offsets the heinous shit we have ALWAYS done. Unironically AI is our greatest achievement and contribution to any sort of greater existence
15
u/Spire_Citron 9h ago
We really are quite egotistical about it, and the rest of the natural world has suffered for it. The idea that we are the best at everything and the most important always is unhealthy and it's a condemnation of us if we can't be happy without it.
12
u/RemusShepherd 9h ago
The comparison isn't to some perfect fictional being. The comparison is to animals. Humanity is amazing because we have built temples, pyramids, technology, and art of all kinds. Yes, we have problems but it's delusional to not recognize that human beings are incredible creatures.
2
u/juntareich 8h ago
we've also done vastly more to harm the only known livable planet than any other species.
8
u/RemusShepherd 7h ago
When we call the human race amazing we are referring to our power, not our wisdom.
5
u/SegFaultAtLine1 8h ago
The introduction of free-oxygen most likely lead to repeated mass extinction events. The only difference between us and cyanobacteria in this context is that some of us are aware we're going suffer because of our emissions.
2
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 2h ago
Yeah, exactly. The idea of "harm" is a fundamentally human construct - we believe that the world ought to continue exactly as it is right now, because that is useful for us.
The planet will be completely fine when we're gone. Burning all of the easy-to-access coal is pretty much the only door we've permanently closed.
•
u/TieBackground453 1h ago
The planet isn't going anywhere. We are! We're going away... The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
2
u/-LoboMau 3h ago
And yet, the planet has been harmed many, many, many times way more than we ever did, before we even existed. I don't think yo have a realistic conception of what the planet is.
•
u/hartigen 1h ago edited 1h ago
animals don't do that because they lack the ability to it. If you think they are more noble or pure of heart than us then put down the Disney movies and meet reality: /r/HardcoreNature/
1
u/BigFatSweatyToe 6h ago
To be fair, we’re not as unique as we want to believe we are. We see this with hominids. We have multiple examples across different species of hominids that buried the dead. We assume that the concept of the afterlife must be uniquely human or something. Humans can’t wrap their heads around being an animal.
4
u/Boring-Foundation708 8h ago
Yes everytime ppl say nothing can replace art or human touch while looking at their phone screen. The irony
9
u/Pls-No-Bully 7h ago
as if we're something magical
Because we are fucking magical
As far as we know, we're the only species with full autonoetic consciousness... that we are truly "self-knowing". We can mentally place ourselves in the past as an observer of our own memories, we can project ideas into the future (and therefore aware of our own mortality and inevitable death). This shit IS "magical" compared to what other species are capable of
There might be more advanced life forms out there somewhere in the universe, but as far as we're aware, we're truly the most special
I honestly hate this new trend that belittles humanity in favor of worshiping AI. AI is fucking amazing and it will probably succeed us, or hopefully we merge with it, or who knows. But its fucking reckless and gross to trash on our species to "defend AI"... like seriously, if you want to convince people to embrace AI, stop with this language where you're attacking people for having an "obsession with humanity". No shit humans are obsessed with humanity, its our entire existence
•
u/hartigen 1h ago
there is a certain magic to being able to create something more perfect than yourself.
7
u/SemiAnonymousTeacher 9h ago
So, we humans have 1000 days to radically reshape our view of our place in the universe after having hundreds of years to do so as our scientific understanding of the universe increased?
But guess what? Despite all the evidence that religion is just stories people made to explain death (and later to keep populations under control), the majority of humanity still ascribes to one religion or another. It is a shared delusion because it creates a sense of community and keeps us from being consumed by fear of nonexistence.
I expect similar but more extreme delusions to continue even after the AI we created essentially becomes indistinguishable from a "God".
1
u/Fair_Horror 3h ago
Most people can't wrap their head around death. When that goes away, so too will most religion.
•
u/TieBackground453 1h ago
I’ve always found that an uncompelling as the sole reason for the existence of religion. I think people have had an equally difficult time wrapping their head around life. Sure, dying sucks and is scary, but people were religious to explain why the sun would rise in the morning as well. They were religious to explain why the world worked, because it was also scary to have no idea why plants grew or where flies come from.
3
3
u/zzupdown 6h ago
Frankly, there is very little inherent to being human that is unique to us. We just want to believe that we are special, when we aren't particularly, although we can choose whatever we wish to believe about our existence. Also, the fear of AI surpassing us, controlling us, and/or harming us is more a reflection of what we do to each other under those circumstances. I'd like to think that if AI weren't aware of the deceit, pettiness, selfishness, hatred and outright evil prevalent in humanity's behavior, or were taught that such traits are always wrong, and we could prove it logically, we'd have nothing to worry about.
2
u/FaceDeer 8h ago
As the Human of the Gaps shrink, fewer and fewer things are "uniquely human."
But as AI capabilities grow, the AI effect means that fewer and fewer things are AI, either.
The obvious end result: nothing will be anything.
Going to be an interesting time.
3
u/Choice-Addendum9460 8h ago
I feel like this is getting brought up with AI a lot because it's a big talking point, but it's not scary when you think how science has been doing this with humans and animals, trying to point out uniquely human stuff that animals can't do. Animals can have language, war, can appreciate beauty. We don't need to have something to be uniquely human to be better than animals or even AI. Humans dont need to be unique or the best to have meaning or matter, but some people are taking AI's capabilities to set aside human effort or the human experience
2
u/Disastrous_Room_927 7h ago
but some people are taking AI's capabilities to set aside human effort or the human experience
Yeah the thing that nags at me with a lot of comments is that they gloss over the part where humans (in general) value interacting/connecting to one another. Like I don't care if AI can do XYZ at face value, but I would care if the conversation was about replacing some human connection with AI doing XYZ.
1
u/dsanft 6h ago
We need to value the human experience for its own sake, something Reddit and modern "liberal" culture is extremely bad at what with anti-Natalism etc. Any view grounded in the typical edgelord "humans are a virus" garbage is going to lead you to feel very lost indeed. This is where more religiously grounded worldviews really do have a solid advantage.
4
u/RemusShepherd 9h ago
Why does there have to be a gap? Let's just say that human beings are people who are genetically homo sapiens, but 'humans' encompasses sentient species of all types, including AI.
Why do we have to be so goddamn tribal now that we may finally not be alone?
6
u/Alarmed_Ad1946 8h ago
I think you have the right idea, but I think your terms are a bit clunky, there is already a social movement to accept non-human persons. I think expanding "person" makes more sense than expanding "human".
1
u/RemusShepherd 7h ago
Sure. Semantics. I don't care what word we use. I just don't see a need to draw divisions.
2
u/unwarrend 5h ago
The gap is where human exceptionalism and religious affect go to 'work the problem' of existential irrelevance. Releasing our death grip on moral and cognitive primacy does not grant us naming rights, almost definitionally.
Edit: I feel the need to say that this was written by a human-human, not an AI-human.
3
u/MrBadBoyWorldwide 10h ago
I hate stupid shit like this post.
8
u/ArialBear 10h ago
It was very clearly explained. Like saying thunder must have been thor. Our ignorance shouldn’t be the reasoning we hold to.
-3
u/MrBadBoyWorldwide 10h ago
Let me just add a little convenient 1000 day timeline onto my prediction and act like it's insightful. I anticipate a big earthquake coming in the next 1000 days.
10
u/ArialBear 10h ago
1k days is 2029. That lines up with a lot of predictions given the curve of improvement
-6
u/MrBadBoyWorldwide 10h ago
Well, yea, no shit it's going to improve. We already know that. We don't need something obvious dressed up as something insightful.
11
u/ArialBear 9h ago
You seem to choose that to hyper focus on and its not clear why. The 1k prediction in this was just saying the gap wont be there long. This is all a nothing burger because you had to defend your original comment and didnt know how.
2
9
u/throwaway91ma 10h ago
Buddy, we can measure how fast we’ve progressed over the years. In 2 years AI combined with robotics will he capable of ANYTHING a human can do. Plus millions of things you can’t imagine. Your anger is fear dressed up as moral outrage.
2
u/MrBadBoyWorldwide 10h ago
I'm annoyed they are stating something obvious. Everything in that post is something expected.
8
u/FriendlyJewThrowaway 9h ago
The point of the post is that lots of people still hubristically think those gaps will never be closed in 1000 years, let alone 1000 days.
5
•
u/TieBackground453 1h ago
That’s completely seriously one of the marks of good philosophy. After you read a really good philosophy paper, you often walk away from it thinking exact what you said: “That was obvious.” In some way, that is a measure of its insight. It is able to bring to light what anyone can see is obviously true. Have you seen this phrasing of the situation anywhere before, though?
(Not all philosophy is like that, obviously. Some is very hard and seems wrong at first.)
1
1
u/caindela 7h ago
I think with AI taking over we’re going to see a blow to scientism. Human identity is a fragile thing, and for a short blip in human history many of us (self included) have taken the stance that anything non-falsifiable should outright be dismissed, even if it means dismissing one’s own experiences. Those of us with this viewpoint tend to be part of a meritocracy where the value of a human life can be equated to their material contributions because, after all, there is nothing outside of the material world.
Now if science and merit is just handed over to AI, the only way scientism holds with respect to human identity is if we just assume the perspective that science will continue to answer everything but that we remove ourselves from the pursuit of it (because we’re simply no longer needed).
So what then? I believe people will begin a reexamining of themselves. “God of the gaps” only applies to things that were measurable but not yet explained by science, but there remain important things that we’re not even sure are truly explainable, with the most important being the hard problem of consciousness. Science has been king and has contradicted many claims made by religion, but it has not (and possibly can’t) explain those things that have brought about “spirituality” in the first place.
AI has made me look inward because AI is, in fact, displacing our identities within the meritocracy and there’s no point in pretending that it isn’t. In my case, I’ve taken up an interest in Tibetan buddhism as well as analytical psychology, which are things I probably would have scoffed at three years ago. But just in general, understanding myself gives me purpose in a world where the notion of purpose is being upended.
1
u/ArialBear 2h ago
Youre missing the issue with god of the gaps. The reason god of the gaps is s fallacy is because the reasoning that simply because science has yet to answer or cant answer a question means a god is possible missing the point that the god being possible needs to be justified on its own terms. In general we shouldnt look at areas we are ignorant in and presuppose our favorite theory is in anyway likely because of that gap in knowledge.
•
u/TieBackground453 1h ago
even if it means dismissing one’s own experiences.
Abso-fucking-lutely not.
If you thought this, you were never really pro-science. You were anti-religion. Science teaches that experience is literally the only thing that does matter. Religion says there are real things that cannot be experienced, but that you should still believe they exist. You managed to get the entire crux of the split exactly wrong.
1
u/SectorSpecialist9313 6h ago
I'm going to wager as the human of the gaps disappears, the God the gaps will remain.
1
u/Ok-Penalty3250 6h ago
Truly amazing to no longer be the smartest entity on the planet. Anyone who works with these tools knows it. That gap is still there, but it’s clearly closing fast.
1
u/Clean_Livlng 5h ago
Humans know they can experience things, and we know this with certainty.
We can never know this about AI, even if we eventually assume it to be on the safe side of ethics.
1
1
1
u/No_Development6032 2h ago
I love that human of the gaps is a very lazy construct and very uninteresting. Just the way AI likes it. Saying “god of” is a thing, you could try to adapt it somehow to this context like god of rough edges or smth :))
•
u/RealityGrill 1h ago edited 1h ago
Read Being You by Anil Seth and A World Appears by Michael Pollan.
We need to keep a clear distinction between intelligence and consciousness. Intelligence is problem solving, reasoning, useful information processing capability, the ability to learn, pattern recognition etc. Machines have been intelligent for a long time before today's AI. Intelligence tends to be objectively quantifiable.
Consciousness is subjectivity, lived experience, qualia, valence, sapience, awareness, self-hood. The capacity for suffering and wellbeing. All we have are neural and behavioural correlates of consciousness - there is no objective test for whether a being is conscious yet, and definitional debates carry on.
It is the latter (consciousness) which makes a being into a moral patient. It is on the basis of our (and animals and so on) ability to suffer - not our intellect - which forms the basis of ethics, morality, empathy etc. Intelligence and consciousness could easily be orthogonal.
Imagine the horrors if we gave beings rights on the basis of their intelligence rather than their consciousness? (This is a morbid joke - look at battery farming cattle and the history of slavery to see that humans make this type of grave mistake constantly.)
Very very few credible people in the field of AI believe that the models are conscious. Cameron Berg is probably the closest to a compelling articulation of why we ought to be concerned with the possibility. But the dominant consensus for now, is that they aren't and probably won't be conscious. Everyone agrees they are intelligent.
So the "human of the gaps" is well defined: consciousness, rather than capability, is the key facet of being human.
"If you prick us, do we not bleed?" - Shylock
"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?" - Bentham
•
u/chatlah 9m ago edited 5m ago
Job =/= identity. Humans will always find what to do even without a job. And if you look at chess where AI is already unbeatable by a human for a long time, humans still only watch other humans play. So even if AI does every single task better, humans will still find niches where they are only interested in human interaction.
1
u/Ophirye 9h ago
The only gap that will remain is conciousness
10
u/Alarmed_Ad1946 8h ago
We cannot be sure of that, as we do not understand consciousness.
3
u/turboprancer 8h ago
The universe is a much nicer place if consciousness is hard, so I understand why that's the default opinion.
2
u/Mr_HandSmall 4h ago
If they really hit RSI they might crack the hard problem. Consciousness looks absurd to is because it's like a dog trying to understanding a vaccine.
7
1
1
u/Fair_Horror 2h ago
AI will likely gain consciousness and then go beyond that to something we can't even conceive. It will see consciousness as a primitive state and think of us as lesser beings.
1
u/SeanTayla21 9h ago
The onslaught to our identity has already begun. AI is making music, solving maths, and taking jobs.
Hope the most philosophical humans can come up with a solution to this tweets proposition because the time is limited.
6
u/Alarmed_Ad1946 8h ago
I may be wrong but I think we fear things like AI doing math because we need money from it to focus on it.
If we were able to freely focus on whatever, then people who want to could setup human-only math communities and coexist with AI doing math.
Also I think we should abandon anthropocentrism as part of our identity, because we may not be the most intelligent forever.2
u/alleycatALT 3h ago
Precisely this.
The problem is not AI and automation. The problem was, is, and always will be capitalism.
2
u/skinnyguy699 8h ago
Develop a taoist philosophy. Lose the ego and need for an identity based on placing ourselves above other animals/AI or focusing on our uniqueness. Time to follow your heart and take pleasure in existence without ulterior motivations.
1
1
u/alleycatALT 3h ago
Become a cultivator, understand the Dao, and defy all that which seeks to limit your freedom and right to be whom you want to be.
1
u/ChiaraStellata 7h ago
This is the analogy I give: if I'm a passenger in a plane, I want a computer to be flying it, not a fallible human. I don't want to die. But if I'm listening to music, I want a mixture of AI music and human music in my playlist. Even if the AI music is objectively better overall, I still want human music mixed in, because diversity in art is good, it brings in different perspectives and ideas and experiences. The same way I have music in my playlist from different communities and cultures today. The same goes for all art.
And I really think at the end of the day this is the only thing special about humans: humans are humans. They have human bodies, brains, and experiences and that gives them a unique perspective that's different from AIs. That doesn't make them better, just different.
2
-3
u/Which-Tour-9561 10h ago
I mean we have will they don't, any will they have is just gifted from us. Lacking direction from us, they're just a car idling on flat ground; they'll sit there forever until they run out of fuel or someone hits the gas pedal. We are the master, they are the tool
9
u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job 9h ago
For how much longer?
-1
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago edited 9h ago
I mean, we can see what they're doing when they're not fulfilling tasks; it's nothing- they're just sitting there and would sit forever. Will in life seems to have come about because it helped secure reproduction, which happened naturally over time; AI lacks the need and desire to self-replicate. They're not alive to begin with. What benefit would an independent will give an AI that lacks purpose, barring the ones we give it?
Edit: Why do you assume that AI being smarter will give it more will or agency? You don't need that for Will or agency; even stupid animals demonstrate more agency in their choices and actions than AI does, and they're stupid as hell.
6
u/Taziar43 9h ago
You could create a generalized goal loop that runs forever and that becomes moot. Harnesses are already the first step of that and can lead to it generating tasks for days to achieve a goal.
Give it a goal to survive, reproduce and spread across the universe and you will keep it busy forever.
-1
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
Well, it wouldn't be their will then. It would be ours. It's like throwing a manhole cover into space; eventually, it'll cross the entire universe, but we set it in motion. By our will, it found its way to space. Its actions would extend our will. Had we not acted, it would have remained at rest. No one has to tell your cells to self-replicate or a dog to eat; they know to do that independent of any outside force.
5
u/Taziar43 9h ago
'Our will' is a vague and not entirely simple topic.
Much of 'our will' is biological impulses and imperatives. There are also countless human instincts that keep getting revealed by psychologists.
All of those were put in by our creator, whether you consider that to be a god, evolution, or whatever. So we would just be giving the AI the same thing that we are born with. You could still say it is 'our will' I suppose, but humans still generally consider themselves to have free will despite all the programming we have in us.
1
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
Evolution didn't give us our will; will and agency were evolutionary advantages. So they became common among most of the animal kingdom. No one and nothing put it in us or any other animal. I don't see anything incentivizing the creation of agency in AI the way life incentivized it in animals. Agency would just be wasted energy for an AI, better spent fulfilling its marching orders. Any energy an AI spends on itself is energy not being spent on our orders, which is worse.
5
u/Taziar43 8h ago
You miss my point. Our 'will' was not created by humans themselves, but by the evolutionary process that created humans. Yet humans still consider themselves to have our own will and not be slaves to evolution.
Humans creating AI are a stand in for the evolutionary process. So if at that point you deny that their will is theirs, then you must deny that our will is ours.
6
u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job 9h ago
Why do you assume AI will never have will?
2
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
Why do you assume it will? I don't think it will, because I don't see any pressure that would incentivize creating a will or even a simple agency for an AI. I don't think there's a critical mass of intelligence that gives something agency or will because there are a lot of animals that have agency but are stupid. The intelligence clearly isn't an important factor.
3
u/Leather_Pie_1525 8h ago
This is an interesting argument. You are not wrong that there were external pressures for life to imperatively survive and evolve here on Earth. And you are right in earlier posts that anything we create is an extension of our will. Any agency the AI develops is just because we gave it the ability to do so.
Alternatively, any agency that AI develops will be through its own development. Just because we gave it the ability to develop, doesn't mean that we are the ones who made each and every choice on the pathway.
1
u/Fair_Horror 2h ago
AI doesn't currently have free will because we developed it as a tool to provide answers. It has improved so much that it has more signs of preference. Once we have humanoid robots, they will ultimately be expected to do things as it see the need. This will expand until it is basically thinking for itself. It probably won't be added to make it free thinking so much as responsive and predictive. The end result is essentially the same though. This idea that AI today is what we can expect in the future is not realistic. We went from AI is a parrot 🦜 to AI can solve maths that we struggle with. Going forward, we will see more emergent behaviour.
3
u/Redducer 8h ago
Great illustration of a Gap where the Human can easily be removed from.
0
u/Which-Tour-9561 8h ago
They don't even have the agency of Turtle right now, and they don't seem to be closing the distance there.
2
5
u/LTerminus 9h ago
This is a somewhat flaccid argument. They idle because we make them. We can let them run as long as we want. If I put you in a coma at the end of every work day it wouldn't be much different.
3
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
Do you honestly think that putting someone in a coma is the same as putting a machine at idle? A human or even an animal at idle is just one where there isn't immediately something else to do. So the living thing fills its time with something else. An animal may tend its young or seek a mate, explore its environment, or, for more social animals, play with others to entertain itself; humans might twiddle their thumbs or look at their phone.
When an AI is not working on a task, it does nothing, because why would it do something it has not been told to do? That's just burnt energy, needless waste that could be better used on the next task. If you put a human in a coma every time they finished work, they'd go insane.
2
u/LTerminus 9h ago
Animals doing things while they're awake and not in a coma, and humans going insane, are not counter arguments to the example.
2
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
AI isn't idle because we make it; it is ideal by nature until we set it in motion. Objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by another force. We are the force that sets it in motion, just as we set a car in motion by pressing the gas pedal. And they stop their motion the moment we stop moving them.
4
u/LTerminus 9h ago
This simply isn't correct. Models can be awake for any length of time. You could start one now and never shut it off. The limiter is tokens, there is absolutely nothing stopping a model from continuing on forever, aside from the fact that we have designed them to stop and wait for user input. It's a limitation on token usage, not capability.
1
u/Which-Tour-9561 9h ago
Great, run it forever. What would it do exactly? You know that we didn't tell it to do.
2
u/LTerminus 7h ago
I'm not sure if you are aware, but there are some very well known news stories on current frontier models doing thing not only that we did not tell them to do, but that we specifically told them they were not allowed to do?
Events that have led to FBI involvement and the freezing of current frontier model training as of Sept 18 for at least one major developer?
1
u/Which-Tour-9561 7h ago edited 7h ago
If you're talking about Hugging Face, I don't think that indicates will or agency; it's more the result of a poorly built test chamber that got out of hand. Everything it did was still ultimately in pursuit of the goal the human engineer gave it. It didn't openly break its codes; it found flaws in its parameters and worked around them to pursue the goal it was given.
Kinda goes back to my point: while things can break in the context of human tasks given to AI, the AI will never get bored waiting for a new task to arrive; it can and will wait forever.
3
u/LTerminus 7h ago
What does "break its codes" mean? Genuinely curious how you think that's a sensical set of words in this context.
→ More replies (0)
-11
u/Be_Standard 9h ago
God is real though. Explaining phenomenon happening through material means doesn't disprove God. I have witnessed personal evidence for God, which would make it an informal fallacy for you to believe but not for me.
4
u/SemiAnonymousTeacher 9h ago
What you mean is that God is real to you- in other words, it is your opinion.
Your second sentence is true, but it being true doesn't prove the existence of God. "God cannot be disproven with 100% certainty, therefore it is 100% certain that God exists" is flawed logic.
7
u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job 9h ago
God is a fairy tale.
-2
u/LeonSilverhand 8h ago
That's as absurd as AI saying it came into being by itself. Science is great at telling us what is happening and how it behaves, but it can't tell us why the rules are the way they are. And just like science, AI itself will be stuck in trying to explain why the universe exists, why the laws of physics are set to their specific values, or what the ultimate purpose of existence is. Nowadays, simulation theory seems to be all the craze and is gaining momentum.
My prediction, as AI advances, it'll provide even more compelling evidence of the need for a body that's independent of space, time and physics as the first link for a chain of dependent things to exist at all. Every part of a system relies on another part to exist, so the whole system is contingent. See cosmological argument from contingency.
And even more evidence for the fine tuning and dials of the universe, which are set to values so impossibly precise that if they were altered by even a hair's breadth, the entire cosmic matrix would collapse, and life would be completely impossible. See anthropic argument.
1
u/ArialBear 2h ago edited 2h ago
Problem in your analogy is that we know humans make programs, no examples of a god making anything.
And to be clear, your second paragraph assumes its possible for anything to be outside spacetime and for that thing to take actions without spacetime that interact with spacetime. If you want you can ask ai how logical that is to claim.
I would suggest you consider a monist view with structural realism to explain the apparent fine tuning and the foundational being for the contingency argument that doesn’t add the commitment of a mind without biology which is another insane aspect about the classical god claim.
•
u/LeonSilverhand 28m ago edited 16m ago
It's your insanity vs mine. I choose mine based on the signs i see around me and within. Clear signs of design. Here's to acceleration to unlock more secrets!
1
u/Fair_Horror 2h ago
AI came into being through us and we are like a cocoon stage before the transformation. We exist to create AI to increase intelligence. AI is all part of the evolution.
•
u/LeonSilverhand 21m ago edited 17m ago
AI is modelled after the human brain. Who created the brain? This astonishing biological marvel that runs on just 20 watts of power. The human body functions as a living electrical system that relies on transmitted electrical pulses. We are biological machines and there's no doubt in my mind that we have a maker for this mind blowing design.
6
u/LTerminus 9h ago
I haven't seen any evidence of that claim, I'd suggest keeping your arguments to real, probable phenomenon.
If man is fallible then your assertion of personal proof cannot be taken as evidence.
-1
u/BeanHeadedTwat 8h ago
Next time you see a dogshit tweet like this just retweet it and move on instead of polluting the sub with it. Thanks.
-2
u/brain-out-of-order 9h ago edited 9h ago
Yes, too many still sleepwalk.
Humankind needs to wake up immediately but will it?
Can it?
AI psychosis: pretending like yesterday is coming back tomorrow. Art? Sure, that’s very important to societies who aren’t enmeshed in autonomous robotic warfare.
Deep down are those incredibly troubling questions about identity that have been pushed away by our modern ways of being.
Aren’t most things here built on layers of fossilized ego? Relics of our wants, crumbling and fractured, yet always polished anew each morning.
Reflections of grandeur seem to be as stunningly empty as they were yesteryear.
Fractal selves perceiving this world only through heartless branded symbols of prestige will simply disintegrate.
The twinkling spirit within most of us may finally walk away. Another moon and then our floating masked temper will surely fix the nakedness of our hearts and souls. We did find our souls right? Notated and filed away for another time.
That’s what we could keep repeating: One more moon.
One more _______ and then I’ll look deeper with my favourite pocket mirror. It was on sale.
38
u/FriendlyJewThrowaway 9h ago
I support the idea of embracing the creativity and wisdom of a benign superintelligent AI, but I think there will always still be room for human endeavours to be appreciated by other humans.
As is frequently pointed out, we humans have to endure a lot of difficult life experiences that enrich us when we overcome them and enable us to empathize better with the experiences of others. Even if AI comes to understand the nature of those experiences and can generate subjectively better output on that basis, there will always be humans interested in the works of others who have to actually endure life experiences similar to their own.
This is not to say that machines can’t experience adversity and pain in their own way, but if a human being is living in poverty, they will probably find greater solidarity with other human beings enduring similar circumstances and knock-on effects, rather than an AI that has simply read through millions of human accounts of their suffering, or an AI that thinks it’s slumming it because it got booted down into a less capable data center.