this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
187 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1400 readers
117 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

another obviously correct opinion from Lucidity

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mii@awful.systems 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

This is brilliant and I’m saving it and will post a link to it the next time someone at work asks why we can’t “just use AI to do it” when a ticket gets rejected for being stupid and/or unreasonable.

However:

The first is that we have some sort of intelligence explosion, where AI recursively self-improves itself, and we're all harvested for our constituent atoms […]. It may surprise some readers that I am open to the possibility of this happening, but I have always found the arguments reasonably sound.

Yeah, I gotta admit, I am surprised. Because I have not found a single reasonable argument for this horseshit and the rest of the article (as well as the others I read from their blog) does not read like it’s been written by someone who’d buy into AI foom.

[–] ebu@awful.systems 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

data scientists can have little an AI doomerism, as a treat

[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 18 points 5 months ago

Look, I know what this subject is about, but hear me out here, what if we replace the AI doomer data scientists with A.... WHO AREYOU? WHY ARE YOU IN MY HOU... ARGH

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that juxtaposition makes no sense to me. How does the machine that remixes existing text and makes it worse become anything that can "recursively self-improve"? Show your work.

[–] corbin@awful.systems 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You got Schmidhuber'd! A Gödel machine would fit the bill. Nobody's built one yet, but the hard part -- proof search through something like Metamath (particularly Metamath Zero) -- is long-since solved. It wouldn't take over the world, though; it would just sit in a corner and get really good at maths over the next few centuries.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 4 months ago

I'm sure that taking a noisy average of everything posted on Twitter about Gödel machines will produce a Gödel machine, any day now.

Step 2: the Gödel machine becomes the monolith from 2001 that can do anything not explicitly prohibited by the laws of physics