Humans are absolutely more special than organic thinking machines. I'll go a step further and say all living creatures are more special than that.

Show your proof, then. I've already said what I need to say about this topic.

If humans are simply thought processes or our productive output then once you have a machine capable of thinking similarly (btw chatbots aren't that and likely never will be) then you can feel free to dispose of humanity.

We have no idea how humans think, yet you're so confident that LLMs don't and never will be similar? Are you the Techbro now, because you're speaking so confidently on something that I don't think can be proven at this moment. I typically associate that with Techbros trying to sell their products. Also, why are you talking about disposing humanity? Your insecurity level is really concerning.

Understanding how the human brain works is a wonderful thing that will let us unlock better treatment for mental health issues. Being able to understand them fully means we should also be able to replicate them to a certain extent. None of this involves disposing humans.

It's a nice precursor to damning humanity to die so that you can have your robot army take over the world.

This is just more of you projecting your insecurity onto me and accusing me of doing things you fear. All I've said was that humans thoughts are also probabilistic based on the little we know of them. The fact that your mind wander so far off into thoughts about me justifying a robot army takeover of the world is just you letting your fear run wild into the realm of conspiracy theory. Take a deep breathe and maybe take your own advice and go touch some grass.

I think what he is implying is that current computer design will never be able to gain consciousness. Maybe a fundamentally different type of computer can, but is anything like that even on the horizon?

I know it doesn't mean it's not dangerous, but this article made me feel better.

Sounds wonderful. I recently had my writing—which is liberally sprinkled with em-dashes—edited to add spaces to conform to the house style and this made me sad.

I also feel sad that I failed to (ironically) mention the under-appreciated semicolon; punctuation that is not as adamant as a full stop but more assertive than a comma. I should use it more often.

possibly.

current machines aren’t really capable of what we would consider sentience because of the von neumann bottleneck.

simply put, computers consider memory and computation separate tasks leading to an explosion in necessary system resources for tasks that would be relatively trivial for a brain-system to do, largely due to things like buffers and memory management code. lots of this is hidden from the engineer and end user these days so people aren’t really super aware of exactly how fucking complex most modern computational systems are.

this is why if, for example, i threw a ball at you you will reflexively catch it, dodge it, or parry it; and your brain will do so for an amount of energy similar to that required to power a simple LED. this is a highly complex physics calculation ran in a very short amount of time for an incredibly low amount of energy relative to the amount of information in the system. the brain is capable of this because your brain doesn’t store information in a chest and later retrieve it like contemporary computers do. brains are turing machines, they just aren’t von neumann machines. in the brain, information is stored… within the actual system itself. the mechanical operation of the brain is so highly optimized that it likely isn’t physically possible to make a much more efficient computer without venturing into the realm of strange quantum mechanics. even then, the verdict is still out on whether or not natural brains don’t do something like this to some degree as well. we know a whole lot about the brain but it seems some damnable incompleteness theorem-adjacent affect prevents us from easily comprehending the actual mechanics of our own brains from inside the brain itself in a wholistic manner.

that’s actually one of the things AI and machine learning might be great for. if it is impossible to explain the human experience from inside of the human experience… then we must build a non-human experience and ask its perspective on the matter - again, simply put.

Ya of course I do. Humans are the most unreliable slick disgusting diseased morally inept living organisms on the planet.

You could say they're AS (Actual Stupidity)

All I’ve said was that humans thoughts are also probabilistic based on the little we know of them.

Much of the universe can be modeled as probabilities. So what? I can model a lot of things as different things. That does not mean that the model is the thing itself. Scientists are still doing what scientists do: being skeptical and making and testing hypotheses. It was difficult to prove definitively that smoking causes cancer yet you're willing to hop to "human thought is just an advanced chatbot" on scant evidence.

This is just more of you projecting your insecurity onto me and accusing me of doing things you fear.

No, it's again a case of you buying the bullshit arguments of tech bros. Even if we had a machine capable of replicating human thought, humans are more than walking brain stems.

You want proof of that? Take a look at yourself. Are you a floating brain stem or being with limbs?

At even the most reductive and tech bro-ish, healthy humans are self-fueling, self-healing, autonomous, communicating, feeling, seeing, laughing, dancing, creative organic robots with GI built-in.

Even if a person one day creates a robot with all or most of these capabilities and worthy of considering having rights, we still won't be the organic version of that robot. We'll still be human.

I think you're beyond having to touch grass. You need to take a fucking humanities course.

Autonomous Systems that are Actually Stupid lol

Human brains are much more complex than a mirroring script xD The amount of neurons in your brain, AI and supercomputers only have a fraction of that. But you're right, for you its not much different than AI probably

The human brain contains roughly 86 billion neurons, while ChatGPT, a large language model, has 175 billion parameters (often referred to as "artificial neurons" in the context of neural networks). While ChatGPT has more "neurons" in this sense, it's important to note that these are not the same as biological neurons, and the comparison is not straightforward.

86 billion neurons in the human brain isn't that much compared to some of the larger 1.7 trillion neuron neural networks though.

Self Driving is only safer than people in absolutely pristine road conditions with no inclement weather and no construction. As soon as anything disrupts "normal" road conditions, self driving becomes significantly more dangerous than a human driving.

Keep thinking the human brain is as stupid as AI hahaaha

It's when you start including structures within cells that the complexity moves beyond anything we're currently capable of computing.

have you seen the American Republican party recently? it brings a new perspective on how stupid humans can be.

AI is not actual intelligence. However, it can produce results better than a significant number of professionally employed people...

I am reminded of when word processors came out and "administrative assistant" dwindled as a role in mid-level professional organizations, most people - even increasingly medical doctors these days - do their own typing. The whole "typing pool" concept has pretty well dried up.

A gun isn't dangerous, if you handle it correctly.

Same for an automobile, or aircraft.

If we build powerful AIs and put them "in charge" of important things, without proper handling they can - and already have - started crashing into crowds of people, significantly injuring them - even killing some.

If an IQ of 100 is average, I'd rate AI at 80 and down for most tasks (and of course it's more complex than that, but as a starting point...)

So, if you're dealing with a filing clerk with a functional IQ of 75 in their role - AI might be a better experience for you.

Some of the crap that has been published on the internet in the past 20 years comes to an IQ level below 70 IMO - not saying I want more AI because it's better, just that - relatively speaking - AI is better than some of the pay-for-clickbait garbage that came before it.

Human drivers are only safe when they're not distracted, emotionally disturbed, intoxicated, and physically challenged (vision, muscle control, etc.) 1% of the population has epilepsy, and a large number of them are in denial or simply don't realize that they have periodic seizures - until they wake up after their crash.

So, yeah, AI isn't perfect either - and it's not as good as an "ideal" human driver, but at what point will AI be better than a typical/average human driver? Not today, I'd say, but soon...

But, are these 1.7 trillion neuron networks available to drive YOUR car? Or are they time-shared among thousands or millions of users?