Why do you need to be such a mean jerk about it? I’m familiar with the saying - I just misunderstood you at first, and I already acknowledged my mistake. What more do you want?

Fair enough. “This is gonna twist so many incel knives” just made it sound like that’s what you were refering to.

Incel violence isn’t really the epidemic you’re making it sound to be. There have even been papers written about the lack of it.

Independent of what anyone is actually saying, the mere fact that someone is commenting on social media at all makes it highly likely they’re one of the people the article is talking about. As the saying goes, a tiny number of users produce nearly all the content. Most people don’t post comments online. The average person doesn’t. So if someone does, that alone already marks them as unusual in some way.

This becomes especially obvious on Lemmy, where you can see people’s moderation history - and it takes only a few seconds to notice how many users are spouting mean, violent, and extremist views. You might not see those views as extreme because this is an echo chamber and you probably agree with them, but they’re extreme nonetheless when compared to what the average person would say.

Nobody ever thinks of themselves as the problem - we all have some story about how our behavior is justified and how those people over there are the real issue. Nah, you’re probably part of the issue as well. I am too.

50% of people are “low to average”

When I open YouTube it gives me an edless feed of recommendations tailored to me. I don’t care what other people are watching. If there’s a tab with the title “trending” I’ve probably just never clicked it. I’m not even tempted to go see.

I spend hours on YouTube every single day and I have no clue what a “trending page” is.

That’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that for a robot to perform an operation like this safely, it needs human-written code and a LiDAR.

I’m not saying ASI would think in some magical new way. I’m saying it could process so much more data with such precision that it would detect patterns or connections we physically can’t. Like how an AI can tell biological sex from a retina scan, but no human doctor can do even knowing it’s possible. That’s not just “faster logic.” It’s a cognitive scale we simply don’t have. I see no reason to assume that we’re anywhere near the far end of the intelligence spectrum.

My comment about it’s potenttial persuation capabilities was more of the dangers of such system. That an ASI might be so good at persuasion, threat construction, and lying that it could influence us in ways we don’t even fully realize. Not because it’s “divine” - but because it’s just far more competent at manipulating human behavior than any human is.

Beginning by insulting your opponent isn’t exactly the best way to ensure they’ll finish reading your message.

You have a great day.

The issue isn’t whether we can imagine a smarter entity - obviously we can, as we do in sci-fi. But what we imagine are just results of human intelligence. They’re always bounded by our own cognitive limits. We picture a smarter person, not something categorically beyond us.

The real concept behind Artificial Superintelligence is that it wouldn’t just be smarter in the way Einstein was smarter than average - it would be to us what we are to ants. Or less generously, what we are to bacteria. We can observe bacteria under a microscope, study their behavior, even manipulate them - and they have no concept of what we are, or that we even exist. That’s the kind of intelligence gap we’re talking about.

Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability. That’s the kind of persuasive power we’re dealing with. Not charisma. Not rhetoric. Not “debating skills.” But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.

The fact that we think we can comprehend what this would be like is part of the limitation. Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.

It’s not that the output of an ASI would be incomprehensible but that as humans we’re simply incapable of predicting what it would do/say because we’re not it. We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.

There’s no such thing as “actual AI.” AI is just a broad term that encompasses all artificial intelligence systems. A chess engine, ChatGPT, and HAL 9000 are all examples of AI - despite being fundamentally different. A chess engine is a narrow AI, ChatGPT is a large language model, and HAL 9000 would qualify as AGI.

It could be argued that AGI is inevitable - assuming general intelligence isn’t substrate-dependent (meaning it doesn’t require a biological brain) and that we don’t destroy ourselves before we get there. But the truth is, nobody knows how difficult it is to create AGI, or whether we’re anywhere close. There’s a lot of hype around generative AI right now because it remotely resembles what AGI might look like - but that doesn’t guarantee it’s taking us any closer. It could be a stepping stone - or a total dead end.

So what I hear you asking is: “Can’t we just use task-specific narrow AI instead of creating AGI?” And yes, we could - but we’re never going to stop improving these systems. And every step of progress brings us closer to AGI, whether that’s the goal or not. The only things that might stop us are hitting a fundamental wall (like substrate dependence) or wiping ourselves out.

There’s also the economic incentive. AGI would be the ultimate wealth generator. All the incentives point toward building it. It’s a winner-takes-all scenario: if you’re the first to create a true AGI, your competition will likely never catch up - because from that point on, the AGI can improve itself. And then the improved version can further improve itself, and so on. That’s how you get to the singularity: an intelligence explosion that leads to Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) - a level of intelligence far beyond human comprehension.

Whether it be AI apocalypse or utopia, it’s not LLM’s that people think will take us there. It’s AGI/ASI and nobody knows how long it’ll take us to develop a system like that. Could take 2 years or it could take 50.

Switching from WhatsApp to any other messaging service isn’t a realistic option for quite many places. I’d be more than willing to switch but of all the people in my contacts (including my entire customer base) there’s like 3 people using Signal but every single one of them has WhatsApp. Even the 60+ year olds.