165
Isn't the totally uncontrolled data-center buildout exactly what an artificial intelligence would have us do? (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just to make it clear: I do not believe this and I am convinced good old human greed is what's really driving the ai and data-center insanity. Also, LLMs are not and will never become AGI.

Having said that: if an artificial super-intelligence were to emerge, building more data-centers could well be one of it's primary goals. Since it wouln't be concerned with consequences for the environment or humanity, it could pursue this at any cost, with only speed and scale in mind. Convincing financial markets and business elites of the necessity of such a buildout would be the ideal way of achieving results. In this scenario, fighting this buildout by any means would be the only sensible response and of utmost importance.

It's a somewhat funny, somewhat depressing thought for me and I literally had it in the shower. Surely I can't be the first to come up with this, but I also can't remember having read it before.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah that's the hard problem I gave you a link to.

There are multiple theories. Some listed on wiki.

A problem is defining what consciousness even is. Like a specific measurable construct. Not a vague abstract idea.

And depending on your answer, will result in a different theory on what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Also the "binding problem" is related to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem

Just because it's not fully understood doesn't mean that a mystical magical explanation is true.

But I can assure you it's not based on mathematical probability formulas.

Otherwise SPSS would have gained sentience 30 years ago.

Awareness is a product of the organic structure and processes of nerve tissue because that's what all brain functions are a product of.

I personally ascribe to the theory that understanding of a self is a product of sensory processing as it's imperative for an organism to understand it's different and independent from its environment to interact with it.

But maybe that's not your definition of consciousness.

If instead your definition is more about quali , then the binding problem is more akin to your question.

The binding problem is complex. And our lack of understanding how it works is why we can't program a computer to have it.

But binding sensory information together to create a cohesive "picture of reality" is not my definition of consciousness.
But it could be yours.

My definition is the "sense of self as independent from environment".

Because people with brain damage that impairs "binding" does not take away a sense of self. So to me, the sensory binding isn't required to consciousness. Consciousness exists without it.

There are other resources than Wikipedia on both these concepts I describe.

Whole books written about them.

But now you know the terms so you can find additional resources. I honestly can't sum up the entirety of that information better than I Already have without writing you an essay.

Just check out the wiki.

The theories start under the philosophical section of the hard problem page.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The binding problem is complex. And our lack of understanding how it works is why we can't program a computer to have it.

    That's a fallacy. Humans do things they don't understand all the time. Humans have been working with complex organic molecules for thousands of years. Humans started using CO2 to change the climate before they understood it. Humans made airplanes before they understood the aerodynamics of an aerofoil. Humans used genetics to engineer an entirely new species, dogs, before they knew what DNA is. And human scientists spent hundreds of years thinking dogs have no feelings because dogs can't talk. Humans are always doing stuff they don't understand.

    Your entire argument boils down to "I dunno why neural networks produce qualia, and therefore there's absolutely zero chance our artificial neural networks produce qualia."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    How can a human program a computer to create quali if we don't know how quali is created ?

    This is not the same thing as using tools in our environment that we don't fully understand how they work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The structure of a neural network, in terms of how it mathematically produces qualia, is a tool in our environment we don't fully understand. We don't know why neurons in this particular shape produce qualia.

    And then we made artificial neurons and tried putting them in similar shapes. Some parts are different, some parts are the same. LLMs definitely share our language skills and produce language the same way our Wernicke's area does. But they definitely don't have the same critical thinking skills. So clearly we copied some functions of the brain, but not all of them.

    We don't know if we copied qualia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago*

    No. Llms do not produce language like humans do. I don't know why you would think that.

    There is nothing in the brain that is akin to llms.

    Children can acquire language words and rules faster than even computers can.

    We do not pattern match. We do not only regurgitate what we heard or read somewhere else. We are creative in our word generation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent