We don't need to live "side by side" with AI. AI is not alive, it's a technology we use. This is like talking about living side by side with your toaster.
Even if not alive, you can live very close and shape your life by and with technology.
I don't take any issue with the OP's formulation.
I'd be more angry with you if I wasn't amused at the frustration you must be feeling in failing to get traction for your dystopian vision.
You people never fail to be ridiculously dramatic.
I own and drive 2 cars.
I'll just stop there. I don't feel this conversation can continue in a positive way.
And this wasn't due to consumer choice, either. Decades of policy dictated the shift towards car centrism that resulted in railways and street cars being torn up, the construction of the interstate highway system and destruction of dense urban cores, zoning law mandates and parking minimums, federal subsidies for suburban mortgages, etc.
This "choice" or "decision" was manufactured by car lobbyists.
There are alternatives to the car culture we have. It would require significantly rebuilding how we build infrastructure, but the result could be much safer, cleaner, and less stressful.
Of course Americans would rather die, but counties of sane people might be able to work it out.
That simple huh?!
Removing onerous parking requirements, like the ones that have resulted in countless strip malls and unwalkable cities with inadequate housing stock.
I'm not suggesting that's all that's necessary but there are indeed simple steps we could take.
After the building of highways and roads cities were no longer walkable, people had moved out into the suburbs, their jobs were now a couple of towns over and they couldn't even walk to the grocery store. Cars enabled that, but politicians and capitalist were the ones who did that.
And everything was carried on people's heads, yeah? The horse and cart was in use right up to the 20th century my man...there was no other way to move heavy items across land until the combustion engine (or canals thought that's not technically over land)
And you found one other "thing"
Actually even today it's 80/20, but lorries carry far more stuff than cars do, so you need less lorries.
And the inverse is also true, horse and cart was used for personal transport as well
Industrial era London was not a utopia. Read a Dickens novel. It was a hellhole. The car also made the suburbs possible. They kill millions every year but the benefits massively outweigh it (or at least society has effectively voted for that).
Many animists would disagree:
And it's certainly not any more crazy than walking around with these small, addictive devices in our pockets that we rely on for navigation, information, entertainment, social connection.
Then you might start with wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
"Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behavior"
Anything that interacts with the brain's rewards circuitry can be addictive. By your apparent definition, behavioral addictions, like gambling addiction, cannot exist. Because you don't swallow or inhale the slot machine.
The only way anyone can make a blanket statement like that and put "all religions" on equal epistemic footing is through ignorance of their deep differences. Even the word "religion" as commonly used today is relativistic by assumption, which is likely the source of how we commonly perceive "religion". A consequence of this relativistic stance is that you cannot distinguish effectively between what counts or doesn't count as "religion". Here, "worldview", "superstition", or "life's highest aspiration" can be said to count as "religion", in which case, everyone is religious. The question then isn't "whether" someone is religious, but "how" [0].
Compare this to how this Catholic encyclopedia defines the "virtue of religion" [1]. Note the specificity.
A further consequence of this assumed relativism is that once you put all religions on equal footing, it is natural to conclude that they must all be equally invalid. After all, if p and not-p are equally valid, then how can we grant them equal validity without discrediting both? At best, they remain in a state of aporia, two logical possibilities so utterly divorced from any knowledge, so utterly contrived, that we cannot even say whether knowledge leans in favor of one over the other. The result is that religion becomes something utilitarian; a person believes X, not because it is true, but because he perceives that believing X is useful to him in some way.
So, no, I wouldn't say animism is just as rational/irrational as any other religious belief.
[0] Of course, most people tend to form their ideas of what constitutes archetypal "religion" based on their personal experiences growing up and some combination of culturally mediated stereotypes. In the US, "religion" very often conjures up images of some kind of Evangelical Christianity.
All religion is based on superstitious believes, or do you have counter examples? But I am already quite familiar with the catholic church in particular and do not think they are a counter example in the slightest.
Quite the question-begging claim.
> or do you have counter examples
Begin with the existence of God as self-subsisting being. This can be be shown to be a metaphysical necessity with mathematical certainty [0]; its denial leads to incoherence. Following that, one can show what analogous properties this first cause must have, for instance. Such knowledge is a matter of unaided reason, not faith.
Once you establish such truths, matters of faith (like the divinity of Christ) become much easier to reason about and to accept. They become not only eminently reasonable, but the most probable (e.g., "Lord, liar, or lunatic" trilemma, or implausibility of hoax). This latter claim is a faith claim, because while reason and evidence may strongly suggest the claim, it does not possess the deductive certainty of the first.
To be honest, I advise to go to a basi philosophy course once. I did, but won't buy such books, I had that topic covered.
There is no proof that god exists. And there is even less proof that the holy spirit came down and impregnated Mary, or that Jesus ressurected from the dead or any of the other countles examples of superstition.
The claim that god exists has the same validy, that a rock has a soul.
But .. you ain't the first of course to ridicule other religious believe systems while thinking yours is solid.
Either way, could you then answer this simple question, the believe that a person resurrected from the dead or a human was conceived without sperm are not superstitious?
Declaring it is not, but logical with the axiom there is an allmighty god who made those things happen - has the same quality as declaring there is soul essence in every matter.
We do indeed have to live with the possibility of asteroid impact, nuclear war, etc. That doesn't imply anything about those scenarios being alive.
I don't live side by side with the possibility of an asteroid impact, nuclear war, etc., I just live with that possibility.
> "The authors discuss two enduring lessons of the Internet revolution: The first is that new technologies do not replace the old. They live side by side."
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1094996802701588
-- https://www.behance.net/gallery/91786053/Ylva
-- https://www.listonegiordano.com/one/en/architecture/casa-privata-eg69/
-- https://katherineryalen.com/alton-mill-where-history-and-art-live-side-by-side/
> I don't live side by side with the possibility of an asteroid impact, nuclear war, etc.
No, but idiomatically, you already live side by side with AI, and will do so even more in future, whether you like the idiom or the actual experience, or not.
Also the author currently believes Claude is conscious, apparently because LLM output contained enough flattery.
Ideas that are beneficial for the human may be passed forward and survive. It got me thinking about religion, hell yeah I would tell me children about god if I believed it would save them from eternal suffering.
Unless you watched Battlestar Galactica. Toasters are nice.
And the thing that matters is: capability.
Even today's AIs are capable of autonomous goal-oriented agentic behavior - and growing more and more so with every release.
At sufficient capability, AI stops being "a technology we use", and becomes a force in itself - not unlike humankind. Because intelligence is very powerful - it's what allows humans to dominate the world. A world where human intelligence has a peer is a world where human control is contested. And beyond that?
You might end up being more outclassed by AI than a toaster is outclassed by you.
Today's systems are mostly good at following instructions. But push them far enough, and you already get weirdness like alignment faking, instrumental self-preservation and more. We know because we've seen it in lab settings, while probing for extreme failure modes on purpose - but the world is large and strange enough that edge cases like that are liable to surface naturally.
The reason why none of this has exploded in our faces isn't that today's AIs never want to do weird and dangerous things. We know they do, at times. It's that today's AIs are incapable of pulling them off when they try.
Capability is the thing that matters, at the day's end.
There is to the best of my knowledge no fundamental limitation to having an agent/claw go on like this for 80 years with a prompt like "live your life to the fullest".
- Prompted as in prompt made of tokens -> for LLMs, tokens double as a clock signal. Time only flows when tokens are pushed through them.
- Prompted as in specific request placed in the stream of tokens -> Yeah, they do that all the time whether it's getting into infinite loops of repeating same pattern, or suddenly deciding to do things based on inputs they normally ignored.
Also don't forget that everything is a "prompt" for LLM. All input tokens end up in the same place.
In the current UIs is there a lot of suppression then as I have not seen things start on their own?
I meant an LLM doing something without any external prompt at all. Not doing something different etc but rather do something without a token/prompt ever flowing to it.
We shouldn’t be doing that as a civilization in case it works.
Today's AI harnesses just keep feeding AI tokens - and can, in principle, do so indefinitely. "Streaming LLM" is not mainstream but not unknown either. "Automatic context compaction" is somewhat similar in what it does, and very common. "Keeping the lights on" isn't hard. And you have to turn on those lights to have an AI do anything at all.
At the same time: that type of harness often provides a "tool call" interface. Plenty of tools that end up attached to LLMs can do things like run arbitrary code, spawn instances of the same AI, and more.
That's frankly enough. An AI that can spawn more copies of itself can, in principle, just keep itself running indefinitely - even in a non-streaming no compaction harness. An AI that can run arbitrary code on a system can, in principle, do anything a human using that system could do.
The thing that truly limits what an AI can do is the AI itself. Practical AI safety relies on AI being either too weak or too well behaved to cause major issues.
Alive is always relevant. Our moral consideration must place beings that are alive or processes that support the life on this planet above things which are not alive.
In a just world, it must be adapted to us. It’s merely a file sitting on disk with numbers in it. And to put a fine point on it: the ambitions of the wealthy people who make it must be adapted to us.
The only system of morality that applies to LLMs is their effect on us and the planet. Don’t anthropomorphize a matrix.
I don't think that is universal true. Personally I my ethics revolve around how to preserve and spread life in general. I happen to be human and we are the most capable and sentient species so that means creating and maintaining conditions specifically for humans, but if another species comes that is better suited and acts better then it would be selfish to insists on us.
Having said that, AI to me is a tool, not a species and I don't see how it can be ever be sentient. But I also don't know how consciousness works. So I am open for the questions of the future in the future - and now rather focus on the practical implications that AI will have on our current society.
How do they decide between using 'a' or 'an'?
"There is an animal very similar to a crocodile but I cannot remember it's name"
and the model responds with
"I believe the animal you are thinking of might be " ("a" / "an")
Are you saying that it would pick the result fairly randomly and then based on it's choice pick an animal that starts with a consonant or a vowel?
And with what we know of LLMs? Autoregressive transformers are Turing complete in theory, and we are yet to find anything that LLMs are "fundamentally incapable" of in practice. Even continuous learning is already approximated with in-context learning - both allow a system to learn from prior experience, both have practical limits on how far they go. That's what powers "trial and error" in today's agentic LLMs.
"LLMs can only predict next tokens based on training data" is comforting but misleading. It just isn't the saving grace you want it to be. It describes an interface, not a ceiling. And if there is some sort of fundamental "capability ceiling" that LLMs are heading towards, we are yet to see it. We know plenty of things LLMs are bad at, but they keep getting less bad at them release to release.
If there is none, then, simply improving over the current recipes iteratively might yield systems that only "need a human" in the same way you "need" to have a boss. Maybe less so.
The arguments over whether it truly "thinks" or "reasons" will be superfluous. They simply won't matter.
He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing.
“I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door.
Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight.
“What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
“I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.”
In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.
“You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.
From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door.
“I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”
- Ubik
Unattended ChatGPT will rarely burn your breakfast or start fires.
More than once I have gone to my toaster in the morning and found cold bread there that someone toasted the day before and forgot about. Because obviously you push the toast down and go do something else. You don’t need to be staring at it continuously, nor are other people impacted by your toast unless they are waiting to make their own. Toasting bread doesn’t have to affect an entire household.
Fighting the
next in the series of Great Demotions, downlifting experiences, demonstrations of our apparent insignificance, wounds that science has, in its search for Galileo's facts, delivered to
human pride.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.
Someone really should go around saying thing like that.
Or the internet.
Oh.
E.g. all "atoms" of a glider in Conway's Life get replaced every couple turns but an observer can tell it is still a glider because it keeps the shape, and it the same glider because it continues it's previous state.
This makes AI not quite alive because it's missing the continuity.
In a tortured semantics sense sure, but in a practical sense they refer to different types of things.
Inference engines are trying to converge any input to a certain limit, and I presume that's close enough to an equilibrium to not count as living thing.
I wouldn't like to debate a process handling the SIGTERM signal, or a container engine applying some restart policy.
That was an Ad.
An Ad in the same style of many before it. Not through an ad agency, but the AI companies hyping their product by making their product seem scary and dangerous.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
IE a Ram truck won't make you a manly cowboy with just the purchase.
It is not.
When the public no longer belives in that, the bubbles will pop and the AI bros will continue on to the next hype, with yet another generation of small time investors being burned by the popping bubbles.