Our own critical ability will always be the pivotal point in our use of any tool.
If we are to develop AI that pretends to be thinking then such a program will be unpredictable and have the capacity to change its conclusions. It will need a reasoning ability that can reject non-rational positions. I haven't seen signs of that at all.
Having a program accept 2+2 = 5 in a conversation is not evidence of thinking, it is rather evidence of a lack of argumentational capacity. Programmers have to simplify human thinking processes in order to emulate them. This in turn is a problem with ripple effects.
AI development will therefore attract programmers that believe that human thinking is a simple process. It's like a filtering mechanism where those that underestimate human capacities are the same people that are most likely to spend time developing AI.
Many ethical programmers will likely reason along the lines of:
Either I am not competent to develop high quality AI and it would be a waste of my time, or, if I am competent enough then I would risk causing harm. In either case it doesn't seem like a good use of my time.
It seems hard to overcome this filtering process.
Leo Fernevak
npub1y0…zfvpl
2023-04-03 07:20:59
in reply to nevent1q…r5qg
Author Public Key
npub1y02f89rpykzhqmrjjz99uwgyl9gh06sg0vpjmklu62rzxpx8mxps7zfvplPublished at
2023-04-03 07:20:59Event JSON
{
"id": "b094d873ca4da9e5d22030bc48971111ca2eacc3484a5a9009daa37a738651b1",
"pubkey": "23d49394612585706c72908a5e3904f95177ea087b032ddbfcd2862304c7d983",
"created_at": 1680506459,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7e5b0c978e8387032fc8c05f16e56912d399d205b09d98e9481cd6b479e277aa"
],
[
"p",
"607e732b12a724d5e112ccd4ba1fd198c4b56df3c871339e200901a5a26d5638"
]
],
"content": "Our own critical ability will always be the pivotal point in our use of any tool.\n\nIf we are to develop AI that pretends to be thinking then such a program will be unpredictable and have the capacity to change its conclusions. It will need a reasoning ability that can reject non-rational positions. I haven't seen signs of that at all.\n\nHaving a program accept 2+2 = 5 in a conversation is not evidence of thinking, it is rather evidence of a lack of argumentational capacity. Programmers have to simplify human thinking processes in order to emulate them. This in turn is a problem with ripple effects.\n\nAI development will therefore attract programmers that believe that human thinking is a simple process. It's like a filtering mechanism where those that underestimate human capacities are the same people that are most likely to spend time developing AI. \n\nMany ethical programmers will likely reason along the lines of:\n\nEither I am not competent to develop high quality AI and it would be a waste of my time, or, if I am competent enough then I would risk causing harm. In either case it doesn't seem like a good use of my time.\n\nIt seems hard to overcome this filtering process.",
"sig": "34788b19692e44cde198f50158f2d848a7df07010acda979357d385192384534370c8909905fce85bca0e84d3137bb3557ae90786d8276cc0e69b68a1f19828b"
}