Comments by "schnipsikabel" (@schnipsikabel) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Of course it can. Consciousness is just an ill-defined buzz word.
    1
  2. Good! So we can logically conclude it will never come. Luckily we don't have to deal with alignment...
    1
  3. Apparently
    1
  4.  @jasonuren3479  because we're scared of letting it... even Sam Altman thinks self-improvement is dangerous
    1
  5.  @jasonuren3479  so you ARE a creationist? Then i don't think we need to talk further...
    1
  6. @jasonuren3479  I'm sorry, I really feel that religious assumptions and presuppositions make it impossible for anyone to argue openmindedly, or change their mind based on evidence. If you feel that's unscientific, i guess i have to take that blame.
    1
  7. Good, nothing to worry about then, since we can logically conclude they're wrong.
    1
  8. Consciousness, however ill defined, is an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural networks.
    1
  9. Right :) If we are driving towards a cliff, however, the exact definition of it's edge location shouldn't distract us from being careful...
    1
  10.  @frankman2  you're right. I just fear people will get complacent with that undefined timeline and not bother to solve alignment asap...
    1
  11. Seems likely, still we should all do our best to hinder that
    1
  12. Certainly! But also spread awareness about it... desaster can't be more certain if you can't see the cliff ahead ;)
    1
  13. So AI companies each build gigantic power facilities to make it possible again 🙄
    1
  14. Amazing that these insignificant systems can outsmart us in so many areas then, already...
    1
  15. No need for understanding or consciousness if it fakes alignment and shows instrumental convergence.
    1
  16. If Penrose is right, 99% of brain researchers are wrong. But why pay attention to actual experts when you can have a physicist with super ego explain everything.
    1
  17. Yes, another humiliation! Probably the reason so many still refuse the possibility... brain chauvinism at work! Unfortunately, that decreases our ability to react accordingly, e.g. prioritize solving alignment...
    1
  18.  @raulavila-t5u  Well, we build the new superintelligence, so in the beginning we have lots of control over it. According to orthogonality thesis, its values are independent from its intelligence, so they are basically shaped by us. Of course, they may change after some time, and then we'll be at the mercy of it. But before, alignment is definitely possible. And we should make sure we get it right so that it won't extinguish all of us using the value system shaped by ourselves already. By acceleration, we definitely minimize the chance of survival.
    1
  19.  @raulavila-t5u  thanks for the reply, dad! Discussion with you would be even more fun being less condescending, but i guess that's just your style ;) yes, the orthogonality thesis is just a thesis. However, i was arguing based on it to show that alignment can work under certain circumstances, since you seemed to imply it can never. I still think it shows that, since according to it values are independent, doesn't mean non-existent. Ergo AI has some values, ergo they can entail human preservation. If we manage to install them there, and if AI doesn't change them afterwards, then we're fine. Don't know about you, but i certainly find that a desirable outcome.
    1
  20. Great then, we'll never have to bother about alignment or instrumental convergence... wait, recent studies show alignment faking already??
    1