@jeena znam znam! Ale dzięki!

@wolnyinternet

@JayDee

> We don’t know what we’re doing, and we should really sort that out.

True. But the bigger problem is not the mythical and hypothetical “AGI/ASI” stuff that maybe will happen one day, but very real harms already being caused by misuse and misapplication of algorithmic and “AI”-based systems.

So that’s what I think we should be focusing on instead.

@lightstream I wouldn’t, because I am not the one making claims about “AGI” being just around the corner.

That’s the thing, OpenAI and others benefiting from the hype make extraordinary claims – along the lines of “human-level AGI is just around the corner” – so they are the ones that need to define their terms.

You are asking all the right questions here (“which human are we talking about”), the point is that these questions should be answered by those who make such extraordinary claims.

@JayDee AI as the wide, specialized field you mention makes no claims about building anything with *actual* human-like intelligence, I feel. People who understand how the math and code work in these systems know better than to do that.

And yes, “AGI” debate is a philosophical one. The problem is it is not recognized as such, because of the AI hype. People seem to think that AGI is “inevitable” and “just around the corner”, because salespeople from companies that benefit from that hype say so.

@JayDee I didn’t say you are, I clarified in my later post. Sorry, should have been clearer.

I am vehemently agreeing with you here, in fact.

The context is the conversation above in the thread, where it was claimed that “AGI” is “pretty inevitable”.

And the point I’ve been making is:

1. we don’t have a good definition of what “intelligence” is, in the sense presumably used above;

2. if we decide to use a somewhat simplistic definition, the whole “AI” issue stops being all that exciting.

@JayDee so two things.

First: sure, we can redefine words in any way we want, but then:

1. talking about “AI” becomes much less interesting if it merely means “walking a decision tree based on data coming from external sensors”

2. the whole talk about “intelligence” becomes a bait-and-switch, as the conversation started with the term “intelligence” being used in the general sense we tend to apply to people and some animals.

@ContrarianTrail

> A chess engine is intelligent in one thing: playing chess

No. That’s not how the adjective “intelligent” works, outside of marketing drivel of course (“intelligent washing machine” etc).

> Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is the artificial version of human cognitive capabilities

Can you give a definition of “intelligence” or “human cognitive abilities” that would allow us to somehow unequivocably establish that “X is intelligent” or “X has human cognitive abilities”?

@ContrarianTrail @JRepin and finally, there’s a question of whether we actually decide to pursue it.

Nuclear power was supposed to be the “inevitable” power source for all of humanity mere 50 years ago. But at some point we decided not to pursue that goal.

Cryptocurrencies were supposed to be “inevitable” replacement for the banking system.

And we *have* cryptocurrencies and nuclear power. These exist. As opposed to whatever nebulous concept hides beneath “AGI”.

@ContrarianTrail @JRepin well I guess somebody would first need to clearly define what “AGI” is. Currently it’s just “whatever the techbro hypers want it to be”.

And then there’s the matter (ha!) of your assumption that we understand all laws of physics necessary that “matter obeys”, or that we can reasonably understand them. That’s a pretty strong assumption: individual human minds are pretty limited and communication adds overhead, and we might reach a point where we’re stuck.

@Marsupial you might want to read up on Luddites. Here’s a good place to start:
https://www.techwontsave.us/episode/187_the_real_history_of_the_luddites_w_brian_merchant

@MayonnaiseArch

@Haagel @Kit for example, @librelingo

@Mysteriarch @fer0n fool me once, shame on you; but go right ahead and fool me twice or thrice, why not!

@maxprime amazing, thank you for sharing!

@nayminlwin

@DolphinMath correct. But Vaultwarden is not the official thing. Not saying it’s bad, just something to keep in mind.

@xenspidey @DolphinMath one note though, BitWarden requires MSSQL (you read that right, Microsoft SQL Server).

@Natanael you seem to continue to focus on PDSes even though I explicitly said it doesn’t matter which PDS you’re on, the secondary centralization (and thus control) happens in the “reach” layer, outside of what PDSes do in ATproto.

In other words, changing a PDS gives you way, way less agency in BS, compared to agency you get with changing an instance on Fedi.

BS is designed to make that secondary centralization happen, and to be where the real power in the system is.

@Natanael

> The Mastodon fediverse have stronger network effects because big servers can enforce policies on other servers to stay federated. It’s complicated for users to move servers.

Well, I wrote about this as well, so I think I might not be missing these details:
https://rys.io/en/168.html

@Natanael enshittification is about power, and ATproto is designed to look decentralized but enable secondary centralization where it matters for power dynamics in the network, in a way that the Fediverse very much doesn’t:
https://rys.io/en/167.html

(shameless plug, I wrote that, but it dives somewhat deep into the “why” of what I said above)

tl;dr it doesn’t matter which PDS you use if everyone is still beholden to the same entity that controls the “reach” layer in BS.

@SkepticalButOpenMinded

@Flax_vert or “ex-Twitter”

@Floon

@lloram239 ah, so you’re down to throwing epithets like “idiotic” around. Clearly a mark of thoughtful and well-reasoned argument.

> Predictions about the world are probabilistic by nature, since the future hasn’t happened yet.

Thing is: GPT doesn’t make predictions about the world, it makes predictions about what the next word, phrase, sentence should be in a text, based on the prompt and the corpus it got “trained” on.