this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
239 points (91.9% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Holy wall of unparagraphed word salad,

Ahh, we are getting into the insult round of tonight's entertainment. I'll break this reply down for you.

Again you are not understanding what is and isn’t an evolutionary process

It seems our definitions differ slightly, yes.

You don’t have to be intelligent about it, all you have to do is continue to increase complexity due to an external force and that is it. That’s all that is needed to have an evolutionary force.

That, and the ability to self-actuate your own evolution. You see, that's what we differ on definition of evolutionary force. We didn't have some greater will forcing us down a path of evolution. There was no force. There was trial and error. The "lived long enough to fuck" survived, the rest didn't. Reproduction is a fundamental aspect of evolution. Computers can't reproduce. We have to facilitate that ourselves, though iterating on various aspects of computers. Right now we can fake it with increased processing power, increased memory, more elegant code, but at the end of the day, without some form reproductive system that doesn't rely on us, the computer can't exceed our grasp. If it could, we'd see true exponential growth, not compounding as in Moore's Law. We can't make them do more than what they already do. We can just make them do it faster.

With computers we don’t have to know what we are doing (to recreate consciousness), we just have to select for better more complex systems (the same way evolution did for humans) which is the inevitable result of progress.

Yeah, sure, and I can cram a hundred monkey's in a room with a hundred typewriters and come up with a better love story than Twilight, but it's gonna take time. Not Shakespeare time, but a few weeks at least. That's the thing, though, the evolution of any system doesn't happen overnight. We didn't wake up one day, walk out of our cave, and create TikTok. Evolution is a long process. You forget all of the things that happened before we figured out that our thumbs weren't solely for sticking up our own asses. There are millions of years that you aren't accounting for. Billions of attempts to create what we take for granted. Consciousness. You say that we don't have to know what we are doing, and you are right, we don't, but it's a crap-shoot with quadrillion to one odds.

And like the fractalization of coastlines, facts, knowledge and data are completely unlimited, the deeper you look the more there is.

Again, we can store as much data as we want, it won't make AI happen. We haven't spontaneously seen life form in libraries, but they have been storing data in them for thousands of years. Consciousness isn't data. If that's all you want, ChatGPT is passing the bar. It still can't tell me it loves me, and mean it.

On top of all of this you have the fact that progress has constantly been accelerating in a way that human intelligence is incapable of percieving accurately.

Funny, you seem to think that you perceive it pretty well...

Therefore computer intelligence is vastly going to outpace or own. And very soon too.

A well thought out conclusion I'm sure is based on all of the facts you failed to present. Bravo.