Why make AI then if intelligence is electrical activity in a substrate is everywhere.
We’re engineering nothing novel at great resource cost and appropriation of agency.
Good job we made the models in the textbook “real”?
Wasted engineering if it isn’t teaching us anything physics hadn’t already decades ago, then. Why bother with it?
Edit: and AGI is impossible… ones light cone does not extend far enough to accurately learn; training on simulation is not sufficient to prepare for reality. Any machine we make will eventually get destroyed by some composition of space time we/the machine could not prepare for.
>Wasted engineering if it isn’t teaching us anything physics hadn’t already decades ago, then. Why bother with it?
Why build cars and locomotives if they don't teach us anything Horses didn't...
>and AGI is impossible… ones light cone does not extend far enough to accurately learn; training on simulation is not sufficient to prepare for reality. Any machine we make will eventually get destroyed by some composition of space time we/the machine could not prepare for.
This could be applied to human's as well. Unless you believe in some extra-physical aspect of the human mind there is no reason to think it is different than a mind in silicon.
It's actually really unclear that this is true. If you brought GPT-o3 back to 1990 I have a hard time believing the world wouldn't immediately consider it full AGI.
If you told a person from 1990 that in the year 2025, they have this thing, and described OpenAI's o3 - strengths, flaws and all? That person would say "yep, your sci-fi future of year 2025 has actual AI!"
But if someone managed to actually make o3 in year 1990? Not in some abstact sci-fi future, but actually there, available broadly, as something you could access from your PC for a small fee?
People would say "well, it's not ackhtually intelligent because..."
Because people are incredibly stupid, and AI effect is incredibly powerful.
I'm very confident that if someone in 1990 used o3 they would be absolutely astonished and would not pull the 'well actually' thing you think they would.
Nah, AI effect is far too powerful. Wishful thinking of this kind is simply irresistible.
In real life, AI beating humans at chess didn't change the perception of machine intelligence for the better. It changed the perception of chess for the worse.
Yeh, exactly. Code doesn’t matter. Correct and stable electrical states matter.
Energy based models and machines that boot strap from models, organize their state to a prompt are on their way. The analog hole for coders is closing.
Most software out there is the layers of made up tools and such to manage and deploy software. We’ll save a lot of cycles pruning it all for generic patterns.
5-10 more years it’s all hardware again. Then no longer need to program a computer like it’s 1970.
We’re engineering nothing novel at great resource cost and appropriation of agency.
Good job we made the models in the textbook “real”?
Wasted engineering if it isn’t teaching us anything physics hadn’t already decades ago, then. Why bother with it?
Edit: and AGI is impossible… ones light cone does not extend far enough to accurately learn; training on simulation is not sufficient to prepare for reality. Any machine we make will eventually get destroyed by some composition of space time we/the machine could not prepare for.