echodot

They don't want sapient AI either, why would they?

No one is trying for a self-aware artificial intelligence.

I work in computer science but not really anything to do with AI so I'm only adjacently knowledgeable about it. But my understanding is unfortunately, no not really. The problem would be that if you run a bunch of evolutions in parallel you just get a bunch of independent AIs, all with slightly different parameters but they're incapable of working together because they weren't evolved to work together, they were evolved independently.

In theory you could come up with some kind of file format that allowed for the transfer of AI between each cluster, but you'd probably spend as much time transferring AI as you saved by having multiple iterations run at the same time. It's n^n problem, where n is the number of AIs you have.

No we didn't, Artificial General Intelligence has been determined since the '90s.

We've always differentiated Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence.

What we have now is AI, I don't know anyone who's claiming that it's AGI though.

People keep saying people are saying that this is AGI, but I've not seen anyone say that, not in this thread or anywhere else. What I have seen said is people saying this is a step on the road to AGI which is debatable but it isn't the same as saying this thing here is AGI.

Edit to add proof:

From Wikipedia although I'm sure you can find other sources if you don't believe me.

The term "artificial general intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000.

So all of this happened long before the rise of large language models so no the term has not been co-opted.

To be a little nitpicky most of the AI that can play Mario kart are trained not with a reinforcement learning algorithm, but woth a genetic algorithm, which is a sort of different thing.

Reinforcement learning is rather like how you teach a child. Show them a bunch of good stuff, and show them a bunch of bad stuff, and tell them which is the good stuff and which is the bad stuff.

Genetic algorithms are where you just leave it alone, simulate the evolutionary process on an accelerated time scale, and let normal evolutionary processes take over. Much easier, and less processor intensive, plus you don't need huge corpuses of data. But it takes ages, and it also sometimes results in weird behaviors because evolution finds a solution you never thought of, or it finds a solution to a different problem to the one you were trying to get it to find a solution to.

I don't think anyone is actually claiming this is AGI though. Basically people are going around going "it's not AGI you idiot", when no one's actually saying it is.

You're arguing against a point no one's making.

You want to keep a pizza together? Ah yes my amazing concepts of sticking stuff together tells me you should add 1/2 spoons of glue

That would be a good test to ask it that question and see if it comes up with a more coherent answer.

Is that even the goal? Do we want an AI that's self aware because I thought that basically the whole point was to have an intelligence without a mind.

We don't really want sapient AI because if we do that then we have to feel bad about putting it in robots and making them do boring jobs. Don't we basically want guildless servants, isn't that the point?

I'm the same with any programming question as long as the answer is Hello World

I suppose that would be an improvement for the people with cancer (assuming the options are mutually exclusive). I don't think it would be that great for everyone else though so on balance I cannot support this idea.

I think you're missing my main point which is that it's possible to do it If reusable spacecraft become available.

Your objections make no sense if such a technology exists.

Marks and Spencer's then

They won't, it's just they're so used to getting their own way with the government in the US that they think that this will cause the EU to do anything.

Privacy is already illegal, technically, it's just no one really enforces it, mostly because the law is so vague it's hard to work out if anyone has actually broken it. They're not going to start enforcing it just because Hollywood wants them to.