Not an attack, just curious why you might need to bring this up ?
For example I have an IT job and constantly I read about startups coming for my job. Yes it might evolve my job but right now with a family and a mortgage, if my job was automated next month I would be completely fucked. Like properly and so would most people who are excited by AI.,
I’m not really saying this going to happen but I don’t really understand the seeming lack of empathy.
Do you think software engineers are excited to replace themselves with LLMs? Like they’d feel complete if they achieve this ?
I’m lucky I own some assets and have other skills outside of tech so I could probably get by eventually but it would be a major setback financially and professions; however, most engineers I know couldn’t really do anything else but work on a computer and have minimal physical interaction with others.
Then
> It confuses me how people don’t understand that moving the goalposts can be a coping mechanism.
And I said (rephrasing)
"It's not weird that people are annoyed by moving goalposts because ... "
Just saying coping mechanism isn't much of an excuse. Regular human things are still annoying sometimes. Like, it's annoying to set a goal, and when it is achieved, to have everyone say that really wasn't the goal, even if that is a normal human thing to do. When I deal with this at work, it pisses me off. When I deal with it at home, it pisses me off. When I read about it in the news. it ... you get the idea.
If you were working on the Manhattan project would you feel frustrated if people didn’t want you to succeed ?
But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about moving goalposts which are so commonly frustrating that they have their own term that is known in logic as, surprise, Moving Goalpost.
I know what moving the goalposts is far out...anyway, where are the goalposts for intelligence defined, do you know where I can find them?
This conversation does not seem like an attempt to find common ground. And I've clarified my point ad nauseam.
Cheers! Signing off.
Some of us are trying to arrive to a correct understanding of what likely is or isn't possible.
How would being dishonest about the implications and sticking your head in the sand wrt a more refined understanding of NN capabilities possibly help you in the scenario you've outlined?
I don't know about you but the idea of conjuring up a false edifice as means to cope with reality is kind of obscene. How about something pragmatic, like contemplating the soundness of universal basic income?
Maybe emotional intelligence isn't common within the ubergeek class?
Obviously they suspect why and they're expressing their incredulity at people still in the denial stage of grief.
Being emotive to the extent you're cognitively impaired is not a favourable condition to be in.
I think something has gone wrong with "technological progress" when we building technology which puts large amounts of people into "denial" and "grief". Personally, if people can't really understand that and then make statements like, "they need to remain logical" or whatever, then I guess you'll never get it.
"Ah it's you again! It's quite funny seeing the dearth of knowledge you routinely insist on displaying whenever this topic comes up. Consider doing some reading on the information theoretic view of cognition and neurobiology. You'll find leading theories for how our brains work have many similarities to NNs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding
Another thing, you don't seem to understand that all physical processes can be modeled completely through matmuls.
You should also read up on the definition of intelligence because you seem confused on what it means.
Pretty much every assertion you make here is wrong and you don't even know it.
You assert "it's common sense" something that does matrix multiplication in a loop can't be intelligent, yet get this, it's literally what your brain is doing.
Please have some epistemic humility and consider refraining from forming strong opinions on topics you don't have a clue on."
> Lack empathy in understanding why people might want the goalposts changed ?
Based on your later comments, I'm reading this as:
1) People are afraid because of recent major advances in AI
2) In an attempt to manage their anxiety, they try to convince themselves that these advances aren't actually significant or effective by redefining their interpretation of 'AI', 'AGI', 'intelligence' etc. to be something that current techniques don't threaten to achieve
3) In order to reinforce this cognitive dissonance, they post dismissive or belittling comments declaring that it's not 'real AI' according to their redefined interpretation of the term
4) We should respond to these comments with compassion, understanding that they're a coping mechanism, rather than correcting them
Is that right? If so that's a really interesting take.