you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

The video isn't about how this is all BS, conclusion from section 1:

They reviewed roughly 1,250 papers on AI self-improvement and found that 74% of them were published in 2026 alone. This field is moving extremely fast. Anyone telling you this is all nonsense has just not read the literature. Is this recursive self-improvement RSI in the bounded sense? Absolutely yes. Al systems are improving themselves within well-defined tasks and the improved versions are producing further improvements. This is a real thing. It is demonstrated that is in the papers and none of this existed 5 years ago.

The caveat in the second section is:

We have much weaker evidence that it can decide what the research problem should be. And that gap, I cannot stress this enough, between optimization and judgment, between execution and scientific taste is the gap that we need to close before anything resembling an autonomous AI scientist could exist. And this is not a small gap

That's still scary, yeah it probably won't lead to human extinction, but it has serious implications for both economic and social life moving forward

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    The fact that GenAI is styming entry-level is not good. People will be slow to enter their career, which’ll push back economic growth. Basically, we’re f-ing ourselves ten ways to Sunday.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    It's worse. With new wannabe programmers using AI and not learning much about programming, then moving into work where they use AI and don't do much manual programming

    When something goes wrong where will they find experts to fix it?

    It might be good for open source, the people who like programming and don't use AI to do all their work might end up working for open source companies

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

    You don't need judgment to be dangerous. People on lemmy like to mindlessly parrot, "AI isn't intelligent!!!!", ignoring that they are not using the word "intelligent" in the same way the AI researchers do. Lemmy users use "intelligence" to refer to human intent and will. The AI field uses "intelligence" to refer to the ability of a system to execute complex tasks towards some goal. An ant colony has no conscious will of its own. An ant queen is just one cell in a body, she's not a mind consciously controlling the colony. Yet an ant colony as a whole is intelligent, it's capable of performing complex tasks. Same thing with AI. It has no will, ego, or sense of self, but it still has intelligence in this sense.

    And that's the real risk. When people refer to superhuman intelligence, they mean a system capable of vastly overperforming humans in many tasks. There doesn't actually have to be a consciousness there to produce that intelligence. Some fool could tell a superintelligent AI, "make me the richest person in the world." And then it grants the wish monkeys-paw style. It decides the easiest way to make them the richest person on Earth is to engineer some bioweapon that is lethal to everyone except the one person who asked to be the wealthiest man on Earth. Everyone else dies; they now own the world.

    The real danger isn't conscious AI. At least something like that we could potentially reason with. The danger is a hyper-capable AI that completely lacks discernment or judgment. It's capable of doing incredible things, but it has no care for the consequences of its actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (2 children)

    The AI field uses "intelligence" to refer to the ability of a system to execute complex tasks towards some goal.

    "the medical field uses 'retarded' to refer to a person with mental ..."

    The dumb nerds need to use better words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    It honestly is the proper use of the term. Both a human and a grasshopper are sentient beings with wills of their own. Where they differ is the ability to perform complex tasks, their intelligence. People on lemmy often mistakenly use "intelligent" when they should mean sentient or sapient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    ChatGPT cant accomplish a single task. It can only sit idle until prompted and then an algorithm runs. That's not intelligence. That's a piece of software waiting for input. Intelligence is about accomplishing tasks. AI literally has none. There's nothing intelligent about AI in video games—it's literally smoke and mirrors. GOAP is a thing. It's not intelligent. If "intelligent" means "can perform well on a domain-specific task" then that is just a dumb word. The Alien in Alien Isolation is literally intelligent then, in the same definition. If that same logic and code were running hooked up to some robots, it would feel real and intelligent. But it wouldn't be what-so-ever.

  • source
  • parent