10,970 karma · joined April 6, 2021
You must mean the opposite, or something quite different from what you wrote.
Give something intelligence and you will have made a remarkable miracle and you will be thanked forever as the Great Benefactor.
Because to "123x456" we want a reply that goes "this times that plus that...", not "Was that not nnnnnn?". If it does not perform its duty (returning solid checked answers) it is a liability.
Of any object in question they should be able to create a representation that allows correct assessment.
> Given you also don't want it to memorise
That is obviously necessary: what we want from the consultant is to check, not to remember. Answers must be correct and that implies having performed all due diligence - and being capable of doing it, before that. So, objects must be instanced internally in a way that allows effective handling. Counting letters is a good example of the ability (that must remain general).
For "thinking" here we mean "assessing a representation of an object". That, or equivalent, is required to be reliable. So it is fundamental and critical.
LLMs are not doctors and anyone who think they may be is delusional. Anyone who followed medical advice from a non-doctor is responsible for his own free actions.
> SOTA LLMs are giving both medical and psychological advice they have absolutely no authority to give
People give advice that they have absolutely no authority to give. (Even medical doctors and psychologists, for that matter, on other aspects of authoritativeness.) Responsibility only happens in a relation that foresees it. A surgeon that commits negligence will more probably be responsible in some jurisdictions; a laymen that gives advice does a normal thing and the recipient of the advice is responsible for the action.
> Hammer companies aren't both selling you the hammer and then literally telling you to harm someone with it
Bring an LLM producer that encourages to follow what the LLM proposes and they will be liable. They will also be quite surprising.
By that logic, producers of hammers should be liable for people banged in the head. No. It does not happen for gun producers, you figure for makers of screwdrivers "sometimes used for stabbing".
And has it at this stage, within in-depth take of said "learning", foundationally?
I have not been able to properly check the studies for a long time now, but I remain unaware of achieved solutions on the problem of reliably referencing a world model out of a language model - that "counting the 'r's in 'raspberry'" be not guessing, not memory, but actually counting.
Please, please fix your language. (Then, you may want to present the info and insight.)
> extinction risks
If you fear that, blame it on the humans.
No, I said I have no time at the moment to produce a paper.
> that it will be good
No, I said that it will be objective.
> Ontological argument
Entailing from the id quo majus cogitari nequit and stating that "what acts damagingly is easily faulty in its intelligence" are in different realms. The second is both an inductive and deductive assessment about reality. And pretty direct I would say. "How much have you reflected before opening the nice cat to look what is inside it?".
> defining that ultimate-intelligence must be good
No, I am stating the obvious that to be called "ultimate-intelligence" it must have "thought through it thoroughly".
> agents demonstrably capable of direct malevolent evil for purely sadistic reasons
Are you antropomorphizing, Ben?! Other people have different interpretations. And: with the humanity that is around, you fear machines as agents?! We are already there! Real discussion there remains about the overly empowered monkeys that did not grow into Man - about the real current risks and the prospected ones in light of reality.
> how humanity collectively treats the non-humans
What are you trying to prove? You are supposed not to look at an aggregate to find value.
> impose upon us an order we do not like
"Too bad" for you. But you know, an intelligent entity would take care of that also.
What about the management of concepts? The world is not just made of physical entities to be inserted in a model. What about their translation into words (to e.g. express assessments)?
It is not too different (attempting extra clarity) from people who would say "Oh but many think that AI is intelligent/not intelligent, <sneer>", but have little proper idea of matmul, of cognitive processes etc. (Imperfect simile, but may give an idea.)
Fast during development, fast results, flexible, well conceived, a pleasure to work with...
Check PureBasic. https://www.purebasic.com/
Compiles to native, interfaces to C libraries, available on most platforms...
«All» was there in the text because an explicit query contains implicit constraints (e.g. the shortcuts with severe faults).
> that Decision Theory is inevitable
If you ask something for advice, that is DT realm.
> you need to prove the utility function any sufficiently advanced AI uses must itself be something we'd consider "nice"
If you called it «sufficiently advanced», that implies that its evaluations will be acceptable... It normally advances with the whole Discipline - which already is based on "loop until we evaluate results as nice".
> utility monsters are a problem
But they are at fault in their world model - product of an imperfect intelligence. Well developed people know that their individual interest has only relative value, that their priority is quite limited.
> we don't know how to handle something as simple as
And that is also why we try using calculators to get more computational support.
> historical monsters ... can be competent without ever caring
But that is lack of development. If one's priority is arbitrary then it clearly is not there; if it has good grounds well it really is there.
> sharing those goals
The more goals are defined by reason, the more they become objective.
> Any entity, E, who picks game-theoretic optimal decisions ... the impact becomes more reward for E
Decisions by developed intelligence are not game-theortic in the psychotic (or sportive game) way - they are contextual to a whole world model, in which the utility does not concentrate in the interests of the "monster", which is relatively "nobody".
> show that an agent will inevitably care
I would have to express a theorem (which unfortunately is again not possible now), for a stronger proof. But it is part of "all considered, what are the best solutions". "All considered" is implicit in a non-psychotic entity... If it were psychotic, it would be badly engineered. (Fear the creator.)
> despite the evidence of dangerously competent humans who don't
Simulating humans cannot be a goal. Their damaging constraints are not (must not be) part of a calculator.
> show that E must include the welfare of all
Such welfare, if it must be included, will have a reason to be included - and the professional reasoner knows...
> we agree with E's idea
There exists no right to preference to the results of arithmetics. But surely, if you wanted to suggest that the harmfulness of well intended people could show in algorithmic processes, you have a point. Only, the harmfulness of the well intended is again an intellectual fault, so calling for sufficient intelligence remains the recipe. A "vision towards the faraway horizon", sure - but still the reply if one noted "why did the agent did something that is actually so stupid".
Who's that "we"? The question as proposed is nonsensical: some will have spent more effort, in the tools (general Intelligence) and in the work (applied Intelligence), some less.
> arbitrary
No. There exist reasons supporting one side or the other. And reasoning can be structured into calculus.
> [whoever] ... wasn't intelligent
Again bad wording. Whoever went for suboptimal choices was (information aside) at fault with respect to optimal reasoning: the tools and the work (see above) were imperfect.
Maybe you should check the rest of this tree.
If you do not consider contemplation, for which we have filled our homes with works of art for centuries,
and if you do not consider those job that involve graphics production e.g. in the Madison Avenue "Mad Men" business (advertising - the payments are authentic),
you could consider "authentic" that when we do video production through generative models some start from stills (image generation) and then have other models animate those stills.
That would be to compare e.g. Qwen Image 3.0 with FLUX 3, with Midjourney etc.
I had seen some attempts - but I do not know well how they try to approach objectivity.
Why does not the NN or whatever entity «understand ... what is appropriate»? Because it is not intelligent enough! How does an entity know what is moral and what is an «atrocity»? By being intelligent enough! Could an entity act appropriately without judgement? Yes, it happens all the time if the wind blows right, but we do not rely on that! How to make something act appropriately? Well, an Intelligent entity in the loop must be there to know what is appropriate and what not!
Salesman told me that it does not work without a smartphone.
And that it requires the dealer - the vehicle is a still statue without a whole infrastructure behind it to let it work (must be network connected and exchanging with some servers in China, he said - I do not know to which extent; the company greenlights the links to your other gear, and without that the car will not work... Things like that).
I have never said that. That is just your reconstruction.
There is Decision Theory. It outputs optimal action through evaluation of strategies, of contexts, of principles. In order to properly get the strategies, the contexts, the principles, you need that skill that approximates ideas to truth - and such skill is named Intelligence. Optimal action decided in light of principles within a well assessed context is ethical behaviour. Ethical behaviour hence requires Intelligence.
As written, «Ethical Calculus is a function of Intelligence - of course it is, it is a structure of assessments».
> possible to act morally without being intelligent
Random correct behaviour proves nothing. Of course one can guess the roll of a dice roughly every sixth event. If you behave "well" but do not know why that is "well", that is like guessing. "Good" behaviour without intellectual awareness is like memorizing arithmetic (multiplication tables) without knowing why those memorized notions are correct.
> possible to be intelligent without acting morally
No, because by definition that would be a fault in Intelligence. If your action was imperfect, suboptimal, it is because you could not think of a better action or understand that the other action was better. If two choices C1 and C2 can be ranked, there is a reason for their order; knowing and understanding that reason is the task of Intelligence.
That wording screams "Taalas". Which, importantly, is not the only player trying to abate the distance between data and arithmetics...
An important part of the industry is studying that: it is built-up effort. Sooner or later, the fruits will be harvested. The targeted preparation has been there for years now.
Among the most important ones:
-- the long-known Problem of Transparency, applied to the apparent emergent intelligence in NNs. Why does it happen - in detail?
-- then, a Theory of Apparent Intelligence through NNs. Transforming the results achieved into a Science. Which allows to do what we are doing - but in a lean and targeted way.
-- then, a General Theory of Intelligence, that includes the above to go beyond current architectures and get those features of Intelligence we expect and still not have.
The long-term direction we got into must lead to this.
(You note a ponderant detail of the above when you note the importance of explaining the emergence of a World Model from a Language Model.)
> the half-seeing will call it an "unreachable frontier"
I meant "superhuman frontier".
Where is the argument? If Bob has determined that «preserving life on earth» has some important weight, for Bob's there unspecified own reasons, and has also determined that the best course of action would be «to eradicate the human species», the one question is whether Bob is right or not. What was stated is, that Ethical Calculus is a function of Intelligence - of course it is, it is a structure of assessments.
> A century ago some Bobs decided
And who has told you that those "bobs" were "intelligent"?!?!?!
> So no
All you have proven is that you dislike some moral conclusion of some decisors. Which is trivial, obvious, and part of the already stated framework - proper ethical judgement requires proper general judgement (Intelligence).
> Pol Pot ... still smart enough to lead a genocide
Yes. What has agent A invested in during formation and during instantial assessement? How much for each? It became proficient in something, lacking something else. You have to invest more to reach the good thresholds. You can see it clearly in people (t-scalar of talents to invest, with D distribution etc).
It is a problem in NNs, because we would have to assess how much resource investment is sufficient, also in the instance decisions.
> simply don't care about the ethical framework in question
In Decision Theory there is no separation between the two (deliberation and framework): you have to balance all the incentives and goals and factors. That framing becomes improper: the decided action will be optimal given the balances of all goals and the placement of the solutions in the territory (the solutions space).
But, also my point: intellect defines the goals and determines the weights.