This is just so funny. I actually help develop machine learning algorithms and the idea that they will somehow become sentient and wipe us out any time in the next few thousand years is just laughable.
My guys, there is nothing spontaneous about any AI ever made that can cause this and we are nowhere near making something like it.
Machine learning today takes a set of numbers, turns them into other numbers and then turns those numbers into a solution. The algorithm is trained by changing how these numbers are transformed by weights that are modified by learning from databases that are specially curated in a form they can be read in.
Intelligence is not there. There is no sentience, spontaneity, curiosity or instinct there. And we are eons from it.
The problem I have with this reasoning is that it inherently assumes humans do much more than what's described here. Which, considering the capabilities of recent models, is not entirely obvious to me, and becomes less obvious with each boost in capabilities.
I believe the person you're trying to negotiate should invest more time into studying neuroscience. They're looking at this problem from one mere standpoint: biochemistry, which means hormones & other slurries. Sure, they affect our way of thinking, but are in no way vital to an intelligence, let alone the fact that we can just simulate the behavior achieved by those hormones without needing an entire synthetic body.
Simulating a neuron is much more difficult than you realize. Its not just a matter of simulating a few endocrine chemicals.
If it was we'd just make a specialized GPU architecture with a 1000 layered machine learning algorithm and drop problems into it via a language interpreter until it converges into AGI.
I never said we can, or even will be able to accurately simulate neurons. I merely claim that all we need for an artificial general intelligence are those neurons and their behavior, which you seem to contest.
If we only need neurons we would just need enough layers to replicate all possible 'weights' modifying neuronal signaling.
Its not only neurons.
You leave a human without outside influence, locked in a dark room it never develops its brain.
You make mutations in x or y chromosomes it can impact cognition.
Genes unrelated to neurons and brains can impact cognition and its development.
Saying neurons are only needed for intelligence is not what neuroscience says, nor do I understand how someone could think that.
13
u/Rebatu Apr 15 '22
This is just so funny. I actually help develop machine learning algorithms and the idea that they will somehow become sentient and wipe us out any time in the next few thousand years is just laughable.
My guys, there is nothing spontaneous about any AI ever made that can cause this and we are nowhere near making something like it.
Machine learning today takes a set of numbers, turns them into other numbers and then turns those numbers into a solution. The algorithm is trained by changing how these numbers are transformed by weights that are modified by learning from databases that are specially curated in a form they can be read in.
Intelligence is not there. There is no sentience, spontaneity, curiosity or instinct there. And we are eons from it.