196

Again, you are hung up on semantics and terminology. You are going down a checklist based on one specific person's extrapolation on the possible consequences of the implementation of a concept. I am looking at the core concept underlying that extrapolation (the exponential increase in capability of a system, due to the recursive application of the system's transformative capabilities to the architecture underlying those same capabilities).

You are caught up on whether the ability to operate on the basis of more data every second than any human can digest in an academic lifetime qualifies as "superhuman". You are hung up on the same extraneous and irrelevant concepts you introduced: consciousness, accountability, decisions, understanding, inspiration.

My original statement was that the singularity doesn't look like the singularity until it does.

Even your liberal definitions still rotate around the concept of exponential iterative growth (despite their addition of functionally extraneous {though derivative} concepts like supremacy or emergent consciousness). There's nothing more that I can say there. You're going on about definitions changing, the center of the definition is the same. Iteration. Self-programming. Exponential growth.

It doesn't look like it until it does. That's what the exponential function does. It's nearly horizontal, negligable, barely noticable gradual growth; until it hits the anchor point when it rockets up, nearly vertical, almost infinite growth. That's the core concept at play. Learning to crawl for months, then setting impossible records the next day.

Learn what an exponential function is. Learn why it looks like that, and what the anchor point represents. Learn how LLMs work. Look into Microsoft's LongNet.

It's not going to look like the singularity, right up until it does

Popularity is not correctness. You're using a sloppily defined term. I'm using the fundamental definition. Your (Verners) concept muddles matters pointlessly.

The fact is, self-refining LLMs can very possibly exhibit the intelligence explosion fundamental to Von Neumann or I.J. Good's definition. They are already beginning to alter the way human society operates (coding, school, replacing jobs). They easily pass the Turing test with the right prompts. Your whole point is that it's not "real" intelligence because they don't really "understand", but I can say the same for you. For all I know, you're an LLM and there's literally no way that you can prove you aren't.

Lines in the sand about "real" intelligence are purely philosophical, and that kind of hyperopic philosophizing is exactly the sort of behavior that dooms humanity via underestimation. I'd rather we didn't find ourselves under machine overlords because "technically they aren't even really intelligent".

@agamemnonymous

Look, I've had to watch it happen to "triggered", "mansplain", and "woke." You're going to have to accept that it happened to Singularity.

You don't honestly think that the improvement of an LLM's predictive algorithm is going to lead to it taking over the world? All it can do is produce words. Unless we stupidly do everything it says, thinking it's truly intelligent, it has no power.

We only have to worry about machine overlords if we PUT machines in charge of stuff, and we'll only do that if we think they are intelligent enough to make decisions. So yeah, determining whether it has real intelligent is a key thing here.

I'm invested in nothing, there is no con. I'm sorry, you do not seem to understand the fundamental concepts at play. I would recommend trying to learn but I understand if you cannot.