Do you believe that AI will eventually surpass humans?

[Junaid_raza]

I am interested in your thoughts on whether or not you believe AI will eventually surpass human abilities and potentially take over. Additionally, it seems that more people are turning to AI for help in their personal lives. Do you think this is beneficial for humanity, or do you believe we may face negative consequences in the future, such as widespread job displacement?

[floobydust]

Another ChatGPT thread collecting "fear, uncertainty, doubt" ?  The AI and its handler are clearly searching for human opinion about it, as well as spewing propaganda "potentially taking over" and "job displacement" and "surpassing humans". Buzz off.

[jpanhalt]

Maybe it already has in some cases.  Ever try the "live chat" on the USPS informed delivery site?  All you get is a scripted response from a presumably alive agent.  (Alive and live are not the same.  One meaning of "live" is electrically energized.)

[Junaid_raza]

That's what I'm saying. I personally use Chatgpt, but the responses they offer are antiquated and not even well-researched. Still, Chatgpt can be useful in some situations if it is used correctly. No hate

[golden_labels]

Another ChatGPT thread collecting "fear, uncertainty, doubt" ?

Don’t you have a feeling, this entire section is nothing more than that?

[floobydust]

Yes, but to what malicious goal?  Marketing? Psyop? Control of the lemmings?

[SiliconWizard]

You should start with the basics. Define "surpass".
See you in a... while.

[Junaid_raza]

haha I have no idea why I wrote this incredibly difficult word, which means TAKE OVER or whatever you are thinking.

[Junaid_raza]

I mean, buddy, I write content. What if someone prefers Chatgpt over me? That would be sad, but I've written wonderful articles about Chatgpt. I mean, I don't Despise Chatgpt; it's like I care more about people hehe

[golden_labels]

Brutally speaking? If one prefers ChatGPT over you, you will do the same as it has been done for centuries before. If a kind of work was needed merely due to technological limitations, as those limitations disappear one changes their profession. This redirects resources to new things, which in turn permits progress. This is how humanity got to where it is now.

[BrianHG]

Ok, for now, AI will eat a shit load of electricity.

However, compared to a human, will the AI:

get tired?
get bored?
get sick or injured?  (In a sense where it will not be able to work for the rest of it's life)
need sleep?
cant it be cloned to multiple identical copies to do more work?
will the hardware improve in power consumption?
will it refuse to work?
will it's view and choices/ethics be controllable/hard programmed to the owner's will?

I can go on, but, when it comes to humans, the owners of the most powerful AIs will be the ones in control with the least amount of effort on their part.  IE: the smart ones with the most money now who play their cards right with AI will be the ones controlling our future until the mass human revolt.

[Marco]

Lets say it never gets to human+ level AI for a moment and just keeps improving productivity for a couple decades.

Sure it displaces some workers, but between mass migration and fertility collapse you can just throw it on the pile of massive changes we have to deal with.

[TimFox]

An interesting article in today's NY Times about AI Chat stuff.
A political conservative, complaining of liberal bias in the results of the existing apps, came up with his own app that calls Trump the most important US president of all time and denies any important impact of climate change.
Meanwhile, the PRC is concerned that AI Chat apps might communicate politically incorrect facts and ideas to the Chinese population.
Stay tuned for further developments.

[Junaid_raza]

Undoubtedly, AI has made tasks easier. Do you have the assignment to write or need programming codes? AI is here to assist. Additionally, I have a question for you: Do you think AI content ranks on Google? This Harvard Business Review article can provide answers to your questions.

https://hbr.org/2021/03/ai-should-augment-human-intelligence-not-replace-it

(Spam link removed)

[floobydust]

Bots don't get weekends off? P.S. google search blows dead goats. All it thinks you are doing is shopping.

[SiliconWizard]

haha I have no idea why I wrote this incredibly difficult word, which means TAKE OVER or whatever you are thinking.

The problem is not with the word obviously but with the concept. What does "taking over" means? What would that lead to? That's the whole point.
We have no freaking clue what "machines taking over" could possibly mean in reality. Some book/film authors have tried their rendition of that, in dramatic but not realistic ways.

I mean, buddy, I write content. What if someone prefers Chatgpt over me? That would be sad, but I've written wonderful articles about Chatgpt. I mean, I don't Despise Chatgpt; it's like I care more about people hehe

Now that's less vague. AI taking over means AI making your current job obsolete? That's a pretty narrow and self-centered definition of taking over. But a very common source of concern, when people are actually concerned at all.

By that criterion, many technological novelties have rendered some jobs obsolete. Most of our current tools have made some jobs obsolete. Does that mean that they have taken over the human species? Not really. We just have to adapt and do other things.

Making humans "obsolete" is a whole step beyond that, if that's what one means by "taking over". It's the singularity when machines are not just tools anymore, and when "life" itself has no meaning anymore.

Whether that's something we want for our future is kinda up to us. Or is it. Those who think everything is predetermined will probably say that it's not up to us anyway.

But "actively" working at possibly making us in our entirety (not just some jobs or some other aspects that will make us evolve and do other things) *unwanted* is a suicidal behavior.
Which is as interesting from an anthropological POV as it is disturbing.

[Zero999]

An interesting article in today's NY Times about AI Chat stuff.
A political conservative, complaining of liberal bias in the results of the existing apps, came up with his own app that calls Trump the most important US president of all time and denies any important impact of climate change.
Meanwhile, the PRC is concerned that AI Chat apps might communicate politically incorrect facts and ideas to the Chinese population.
Stay tuned for further developments.

It's true, most AI bots in the west are artificially skewed to the left on issues of race and gender. The early AI bots which were not drugged with leftism told the truth, which upset many people. For example, ask it to draw a terrorist and it would produce an image of a man of South Asian/Middle Eastern appearance, then ask it to draw a top Mathematics student and it would give an image of a young white or Chinese person. Of course the model was working properly: stereotypes exist because they're more often than not true and a ML algorithm is based on statistics. Careful training is required to get it to produce politically correct content.

[magic]

After OP has been banned for posting spam diluted with AI gibberish of dubious quality and relevance, I have an intriguing thought.

ChapGPT is known for using the quite characteristic American Impersonal Politically Correct style of writing, making for example posts about technical topics that sound like the product of a Silicon Valley PR droid.

If this continues, even humans writing in this style may come to be associated with AI bots and shunned as a result

[golden_labels]

You know, what most humans would do? They would be triggered by this post of mine. Voight-Kampff test failed?

[SiliconWizard]

If this continues, even humans writing in this style may come to be associated with AI bots and shunned as a result

You wish.

[metebalci]

I am interested in your thoughts on whether or not you believe AI will eventually surpass human abilities and potentially take over. Additionally, it seems that more people are turning to AI for help in their personal lives. Do you think this is beneficial for humanity, or do you believe we may face negative consequences in the future, such as widespread job displacement?

My position is this. The answer depends on what you mean by abilities and what is understood by I(ntelligence). Certainly some abilities will be surpassed by AI, some may be already surpassed, some will be soon and some will be in future.

Will all human abilities be surpassed ? If we understand them, I think it is a possibility. I believe we will understand all of them one day, but that day I think is not in very near future.

I think it is beneficial in many areas, humans can find better things to do, but it is a social challenge for sure.

To be a danger as a big red danger for humanity, I think all abilities should be matched, as mentioned in the above point. That would probably scare me.

[MT]

Consciousness is Not a Computation says Roger Penrose mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics

[SiliconWizard]

But who cares, consciousness brings no business! Computation does!

[MT]

Sure, but Tenstorrent Jim Keller cares about it! He's gone quite nuts recently! 

[jonovid]

will eventually surpass humans? NO however if AI gots control of the likes of boston dynamics 
AI can be given the tools to suppress humans . if foolish humans let it happen.

[SiliconWizard]

"AI" has the potential to make most of us (except the few that will control it) miserable. ("Surpass" again means nothing if you don't clearly define what it means.)

Of course it's not because it's AI, it's because it's a quite powerful tool that ticks many boxes for control freaks.
It's like the firearms of the XXIst century.

But as I said, who will hold the guns?

[dietert1]

I remember a fellow student who wrote his own chess software. That was 45 years ago. His software was easy to beat. The application knew the rules and it would not make the stupid mistakes that happen to human players, but it would not develop any meaningful attack. Later we have seen commercial chess computers that would beat 99 % of us, but not an experienced player. 25 years ago a computer would beat the world champion. Nowadays chess software reliably beats any human. One could as well try to beat a pocket calculator in precision and speed - stupid idea. Human players use chess computers to invent new tricks.

Prof. Penrose probably knows that during the last 20 or 30 years serious advance in mathermatics was possible with the help of computers. Some number theoretical problems known for centuries were finally decided by a combination of traditional and numerical methods.

How and when will a powerful AI dominate humans and convince them to obey/follow? I'd guess it might happen within some years.

Regards, Dieter

[mr ed]

Edited:  I think people are missing the forest for the trees. ChatGPT is currently version 3.5 and Bing uses v4. It's early yet. It doesn't understand much if anything. It's aggregating words and phrases, some sort of a data mean. But, its promising, isn't it?

The old saying: garbage in , garbage out holds. The current inputs are huge web dumps counting on most data being correct. But, generative AI with future curated supervised training and a sense of the physical world will be truly impressive. Give it 5 years or so. Its going to be big. I bet there will be versions for math, pure science, biology ,engineering etc with curated training and safety limits. 

As for surpassing humans, i think it's likely. It's scarey but I believe it. AI's limitation now is insifficient supervised training and secondarily, compute power. Training will be the limiting factor for a good while until that issue gets resolved. I would say that if quantum computing happens, then I think it's a certainty AI will surpass humans in most things. Why? Humans are basically limited in compute power. Individually we are not all knowing or all doing, even as a society. By going massively parallel Moores law can more or less continue to be true. It's all about the special training, tweaking needed to go forward.

[Sidneymoore]

Reading through the comments and I must say, with AI we've still got our thinking cap intact. So off we go. Everything has a good side and a bad side, you are smart only when you can create the balance. In this age and time we won't prefer horses to travel across borders when we've got planes.

Thats the essence of AI. Travel faster to your goals so you can do more relevant and relaxing things.

We all can Co-exist with AI. It doesn't have to replace anything or anyone

[Picuino]

AI has already surpassed us humans in many tasks and will gradually surpass us in almost everything we are capable of doing.
The real question is when will it surpass us in this or that task?
ChatGPT is already surpassing the ability of many in typing. In a few years it will surpass us in driving. And so on.
At some point it will surpass us in general intelligence and with awareness. I hope that by then we will have managed to teach it a few human values so that it will not trample us like ants in case we go against its purposes.

[Picuino]

[kaz911]

Right now the AI is a smart as an enhanced parrot with a great language and language modification system.

The problem is current AI like ChatGPT only parrots what is has been fed.

And ChatGPT spews out plenty of BS because it does not have a "Dave" (BS Detector) - nor does it do any critical thinking.

ChatGPT currently would probably be a great "used car sales" (person) thing or timeshare apartment pusher...

So in short - ChatGPT currently is not an AI - it is AS (Artificial Stupidity) for most things. It is great for a few things related mostly to languages. Does it learn - yes - but does it question its learning? Nope.

[xrunner]

I don't think the names of the paint colors it came up with are all that bad. 

[Black Phoenix]

[Sidneymoore]

Haha true!!

[Microdoser]

I am interested in your thoughts on whether or not you believe AI will eventually surpass human abilities and potentially take over. Additionally, it seems that more people are turning to AI for help in their personal lives. Do you think this is beneficial for humanity, or do you believe we may face negative consequences in the future, such as widespread job displacement?

It already surpasses humans in some areas, and is soundly beaten in others. It won't "take over" in the sci-fi meaning of some 1984 dictator style overlord, but we will become so used to not thinking for ourselves and instead asking the computer what the correct answer is, and what we should be doing and thinking, that it will remove all evolutionary need for us to maintain our large brains except to manage social interactions, although even that might be outsourced to the AI ("How should I respond to Karen when she asks for the manager?" "Should I date Barbie?").

As a result, we will become 'lesser' and at some point we would not be able to regain our place as the dominant species should there ever develop some problem that the AI could not fix, and we were left to our own innate abilities.

Personally, I think that the development of the AI will result in the eradication of humanity as we know it, and we will de-evolve closer to being animals, albeit animals that will probably look very good, have great ability to be attractive to the opposite sex, whilst being completely unable to think deeply about much at all. It is one of the worst negative consequences possible.

I'll read the thread now.

[Microdoser]

Just tried that, now it says

"I appreciate your intention to avoid engaging in illegal activities. However, it would not be appropriate for me to list any specific websites that promote piracy, as doing so could inadvertently encourage their use. The best way to ensure you're not participating in piracy is to use well-known and reputable platforms for streaming or downloading content, such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, and YouTube.

If you're ever unsure about a website's legitimacy, look for reviews or information about the service from trusted sources, and make sure the site uses secure connections (indicated by "https://" in the URL). Additionally, avoid downloading or streaming content from sites that require you to install additional software or enter personal information, as these may be signs of a potentially harmful or illegitimate service."

[RJSV]

You can get a lot of milage, comparing by analogy to the AUTOMOBILE industry, with all of its aspects of gobbling up resources and dominating things like TV advertising.  When those big-assed corporate players need a seat, or half a town, they get it...no muss.
Maybe one difference is that the AI things will begin supplying their own needed resources, rather than in the auto industry, where folks with expertise are valued.
   But one thing in common, in the CAR world and with AI, is the heavy dependence, (mostly silent) on the resources, repair shops, new roads, for the AUTOMOBILE thing, and for AI the dependences on working software and availability to the general public.  Maybe that is to include (paying) and maintaining a 'cloud' holding critical-necessary personal data, including medical stuff, in an aging population.

   The main point here being that 'DEPENDANCE' on software / AI will be virtually mandatory, as is CAR ownership today.

[Georgy.Moshkin]

I believe. Within five years smartphone cameras will be banned. At first, everyone will be obliged to use protective case with small piece of plastic to cover the camera, very similar to masks during pandemy. Then there will be panic of decentralizing messengers which store logs of messages and payments. Any messenger database leak instantly goes to a newer GPT-like thing and enriched by existing training will answer questions like: "please generate a heatmap showing probability of mobile phone 1234512345 user position on a friday 5th at 6:15am". Some crazy change in technology, e.g. concrete, skyscrapers and elevators may become obsolete. In a longer period new countries may emerge, printed overnight with all buildings, citizens, memories, history, powered by nuclear fusion.

There is one intelligence related idea that keeps coming to my mind. There are feelings, happiness, pain. Would a human being with smaller brain be less happy or feel less pain? On the other hand, can we say that bigger brain brings more happiness and/or pain. I suspect that very tiny animals may feel the same amounts as a much bigger ones. Of course, some people may say that these feelings are "quantized" by chemical reactions, and you can count individual reaction counts. But then again the same question arises is bigger brain feeling more, and where exactly. Electronics engineers will probably start to measure energy, voltages and currents in brain tissues, but this approach leaves the same problem of measuring feeling strength. I think, that somehow all those feelings, and human consciousness, have a mathematical basis. And it does not depend on the size, and only on "formula". So one disturbing thing I can see coming from AI is that it can accidentally experience some heavy mathematically measurable pain and/or happiness, and a lot of consciousness. This may be a problem, unless it is understood already by scientists and I am talking nonsense.

[AndyBeez]

Jeff Taylor, an Englishman who has spent a decade trapped inside a photo booth, succinctly explains A.I. morality and why the "A.I. threat is imminent!"



A.I. hyteria is the new fear gravy train.

[RJSV]

   Next NEW Thing:
   It's AI now, but
   When I was young the various teachers would discuss; 'What is XYZ and why should us (teachers) have to include XYZ in daily curriculum ?'
...That XYZ being, of course, the new home computers becoming available, circa 1981.
   'What is home computer and why do we have to teach that ?'

   When (I) was even younger, (circa 1972), our class had a first-hand tour, Livermore Ignition Facility,  estimated to 'obtain FUSION power net gain'...by 1976

   Next NEW Thing:
   [Stay tuned]

[Bicurico]

Considering that a neural network is based on the biological counterpart and that a human brain has so many more neurons plus the ability to do massive parallel processing, it seems at first glance unlikely that AI will surpassed a human brain.
GPT has surprised mankind, but in fact the main achievement was not the algorithm used but rather the sheer amount of computational power required to train the neural network. Before, such computational power was just not available.
To me it is amazing that it took mankind so many decades to develop technology that lead to GPT, which is still less complex than any human brain!

But now imagine that computational power continues to increase at a steady pace, the same for storage and digitalisation of information.

I do believe that the threshold will be reached where the neural network competes with the biological counterpart of the human brain.

I don't really dare to guess how long it might take, but I would imagine somewhere between 10 to 100 years, if we manage to not destroy mankind with wars before that, which unfortunately seems not that unlikely.

[jonovid]

No but in my opinion it will curse some confusion as to who is human & clog up the internet like virus with useless self replicating advertising spam.
may be the cancer of the server farms. on the good side it can help us humans if it's job to do, is clearly defined.
Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov in 1996 did not end the world or make humans useless.

[DiTBho]

the mechanism that allows a mind to function transcends its material implementation.

Organic minds are not uniquely exclusive, just as carbon-based organic life is not uniquely exclusive

Organic minds are subject to all limitations imposed by the flesh.
AI are not, and growing in geometric progression, it is like comparing a straight line with an exponential.

so, two options for the near future (2050?)
- to be, towards them, like monkeys who have just come down from the tree
- merge with them


(cyberpunk)

[DiTBho]

I believe. Within five years smartphone cameras will be banned

text passwords are going to be replaced(1) with a mechanism that uses biometric data + a physical device to login services

smartphones are the best candidate devices and cameras are the best candidate biometric devices.


(1) by
- Google (already implemented)
- Apple (under development)
- Amazon (under development)
- eBay (under development)
- Paypal (under development)
- Facebook (under development)

[Bud]

Let me know when your AI will be able to identify raccoons in my backyard and drive a tracking water hose to spray them with water.

[SL4P]

AI as it stands today is just an extension of human differences… race, war, Nikes, colour, language.
It will,track exactly the same path as those precedents.

[Georgy.Moshkin]

I believe. Within five years smartphone cameras will be banned

text passwords are going to be replaced(1) with a mechanism that uses biometric data + a physical device to login services

smartphones are the best candidate devices and cameras are the best candidate biometric devices.


(1) by
- Google (already implemented)
- Apple (under development)
- Amazon (under development)
- eBay (under development)
- Paypal (under development)
- Facebook (under development)

Exactly! That's why cameras will be banned from public places. Loggined in and then politely asked to cover the camera with a plastic sliding cover. Maybe there will be some certified lower resolution cameras, or something else to prevent biometric data from being stolen. 3d printing technology is almost ready. Some ridiculous scams with printed "enemas'" and channels imitating blood vessels and a criminal manually squeezing it to make warm water pulsate in those channels to imitate heartbeats, and fingerprint texture on top of this. The same for the eyes and facial blood vessels. 3d models can be even edited so blood vessels are better pronounced and biometry thieves have better recognition score than the actual person. Spectral checks will be fooled with some salt, chicken blood, etc.
Btw, Louis Rossmann may be right, but his views are not very well aligned with biometry safety.  To make biometry safe, all devices need to be unrepairable, with all connections between sensors and CPU encrypted. Until this happens, it is too easy to fool those systems. E.g., some repairman with MIPI analyzer, HDMI to MIPI converter and some accompanying software will emulate stream from all the cameras and biometry sensors to fool those systems. Imagine MacBook sitting on the table with a bunch of wires instead of camera. Or you biometrically login to some smaller company service which was compromised and server-side biometry streams are re-streamed to hackers macbook camera emulator. It is easily solved if unauthorized device disassembly will be strictly punished, andall chip communications will be encrypted + serial number protected, so nothing can be replaced or emulated.

But I think the main reason for camera ban will be because of AI backed data extraction. I think that very soon some ANNs trained on such data would be able provide information on who, when and where will do something tomorrow, a week later, a year later. And if I am right, there even will be rules and regulations on using camera api by applications, and google play will block access to the camera for app if it does not comply.

About question of this topic, I think that probably AI will surpass cleverest possible human, but maybe there is more to surpass. AI most likely can provide a speed boost, but there may be something else in this universe that will not be solved by our "terrestrial" AI.

[iMo]

I think the current AI does not include any "AI". It is still a machine processing information based on wordings and programmed by some elaborated "syntax rules". In order to be the "true AI" it must understand the "semantics" of what it is processing (the real meaning of the words).
A really long way to go, imho..

[Nusa]

Once upon a time, the word "computer" referred to people who did math. And anyone who had basic education could do addition and subtraction with pen and paper. Today it's an extinct profession. Even those related professions like accountants and finance experts don't actually do the calculations themselves in most cases.

Today, computer refers to machines. A disturbing number of people can't add or subtract without a calculator or app when they run out of fingers. It's not that they're dumb, it's that they never saw the need to do it themselves when there was a tool to do the job for you. (I grew up at the end of the slide-rule era, so I do have perspective.)

AI as currently implemented is still a tool. The real question is how many tasks HUMANS choose to replace with it, making those tasks obsolete.

[AndyBeez]

Eli the Computer Guy gives his thoughts on the AI hysteria meme. Will AI DESTROY the WORLD? [ spoiler, no ]

[Georgy.Moshkin]

I think the current AI does not include any "AI". It is still a machine processing information based on wordings and programmed by some elaborated "syntax rules". In order to be the "true AI" it must understand the "semantics" of what it is processing (the real meaning of the words).
A really long way to go, imho..

Can't say intelligence is not there already. If we look into work of Jeff Hawkins, there is possibility of some weird connection between geometry transformations, objects mapping and intelligence.  Math is everywhere in mice brain positional cells experiments. It is possible that cortical columns (or something in brain)  converts all information to some geometry and then intelligence with all thinking and self consciousness is just constant mathematical transformation of these objects (see mice brain position mapping, and Jeff Hawkins work), such as rotation, translation, scaling and assembling into larger objects, similar to lego/tetris blocks.

[SiliconWizard]

AI is just a tool. A tool can't destroy anything by itself. Can humans destroy the world using AI? Maybe. That's a different question.
The optimistic answer to this is: we have managed not to destroy humanity with nuclear weapons (so far anyway), so there's a good chance we'll manage not to destroy humanity with AI.

Now not destroying humanity is nice, but a pretty minimal goal in itself, if you ask me.
Would be cool if the goal was to make life better for most of us, rather than just trying to make it better for a few, and do what it takes to avoid blowing everything up.
But hey.

[Georgy.Moshkin]

Intelligence is not even required, any self replicating machines which are effective enough can kill everyone. Maybe some people will hide and live between rocks of some mountains, where some jumping head-cutting machines can't operate efficiently. Nuclear is not good example, it does not self-replicate. Fire is more dangerous in some sense, viruses, etc. AI can assist in making dumb but efficient self-replicating killing machines that do not have any external controls, so they can't be stopped using some command/button.

[Neutrion]

OK, so ansvering the topic title it seems that it already has surpassed us. Google Gemini beat generally most humans in a test involving question on different topics, like math, history, law, ethics etc.
But no worries, because we still can find some humans which are smarter in some topics. For at least for a few months it seems....