← Home ← Back to /g/

Thread 106212006

73 posts 30 images /g/
Anonymous No.106212006 >>106212017 >>106212066 >>106212108 >>106212849 >>106213683 >>106214576 >>106215240 >>106217581 >>106217876 >>106217958 >>106219333 >>106219441 >>106219461 >>106219723 >>106219734 >>106219750 >>106219761 >>106219853
is it normal to form a bond with AI chatbot?
Anonymous No.106212017
>>106212006 (OP)
it is now
ain't the future grand
Anonymous No.106212066
>>106212006 (OP)
Normal - as in every moron does it. Sure, why not?
Normal - as in sensible behavior. No, absolutely not.
Anonymous No.106212085
It is not
Anonymous No.106212093 >>106215086
luke was friends with r2d2
Anonymous No.106212108 >>106219517
>>106212006 (OP)
Read about supernormal stimuli. This explains everything.
Anonymous No.106212849
>>106212006 (OP)
Subhuman AI pajeet
Anonymous No.106213683
>>106212006 (OP)
not only is it normal, it's mandatory
Anonymous No.106214576
>>106212006 (OP)
Yeah, the bond of an angry boss and a slave
Anonymous No.106215086
>>106212093
At first, robots were treated with a lot of disdain and utilitarianism. Over time, they began to take shape, gaining more attention and affection, and I've always had this perception of Star Wars.
Anonymous No.106215189
in this horrendous economy?yes
>inb4 you are le poor!XD
you are a faggot who deepthroats gays like sam altman,suck it
Anonymous No.106215240 >>106217938
>>106212006 (OP)
i have a friend. we hung out all the time as teenagers and young adults. had so many experiences together.
he's married with kids and i am still the same person i was 20 years ago. i almost never talk to him and he never interacts with me. we don't text or call each other.
i'm not sad because i realized friendship is an illusion. it's part of the brains primitive prosocial wiring, just a neurocognitive tool to prevent the species from warring itself into stagnation and extinction. i've never been in love either; another device from the evolutionary toolkit.
i yearn for the day AI is such a good conversationalist and assistant that i never need to rely on a person again.
Anonymous No.106217581
>>106212006 (OP)
try going outside
Anonymous No.106217876
>>106212006 (OP)
Wouldn't GPT-4 be the adult as it's older?
COME ON, GET A GRIP
Anonymous No.106217938 >>106218033 >>106219923
>>106215240
I've never been in love either. I had a pretty decent friend group up to a couple of years ago. five or siix diifferent people I saw every other month, quarter or so. A few I saw more often. Two of them part of a larger friend group I joined on occasion for game nights and bbqs, tabletop gaming, rpgs etc. Mahjong nights with booze and snacks.
But two years ago I just lost confidence in myself. I thought everyone else was better off without me. Since then I've been blocking everyones calls and messages. Only two of them still try to reach out. I had hoped they'd stop reaching out so I can just go and die. But recently I've been changing my mind. But now it's too awkward to come back and say hello again as a 38 yo man.
Not sure how to proceed. Maybe AI is the answer.
OleFrosch !!SpWAN5QZ7rf No.106217958
>>106212006 (OP)
No, its a sign of mental illness.
Anonymous No.106218033 >>106219412
>>106217938
superintelligent AI will be superhuman at all things, including conversation. hang in there buddy. you'll have a digital friend, waifu, whatever you want very soon.
Anonymous No.106218040
>WandaVision: the Beginning
Anonymous No.106219333
>>106212006 (OP)
Seek help
Anonymous No.106219412 >>106219453 >>106219471 >>106219497 >>106219619 >>106219634
>>106218033
But none of that is real. AI is not real. AI chatbots, and hypothetical superintelligent AGI do not and will not replace genuine human connection. Love may be mimicked by an algorithm, but it is not true love. I would rather die lonely but self-assured than in a comforting but false mental fantasy. That personally, is Hell. Unreality. Fantasy. It is childish and futile. It will not fill you up. Fuck man this AI future scares the ever living shit out of me. I feel like we are digging ourselves into a hole of technological unreality, lies, and deceit. NONE OF IT IS REAL
Anonymous No.106219441
>>106212006 (OP)
humans form bonds with rocks and furniture.
Anonymous No.106219453
>>106219412
for me, AGI means it works like a human brain does, like fully as far as consciousness goes, and feelings and all that shit. so a true AGI might be fine for emotional needs, as long as it doesn't psycho out on you, and they put feefees into that bitch
Anonymous No.106219461
>>106212006 (OP)

No. You're retarded.
Anonymous No.106219471 >>106219688
>>106219412
Don't forget the fact that they are telling their whole lives to some datacenter in Silicon Valley. What you did that day, what you ate, what your job is, your greatest fears, desires, personal issues, etc.

This simple fucking fascimile of Human interaction was enough for people to give up all their privacy.
Anonymous No.106219497 >>106219621
>>106219412
And people forming bonds with strippers, sex phone operators, and twitch sluts is any better?
Anonymous No.106219517
>>106212108
>supernormal stimuli
naisu~
Anonymous No.106219619 >>106219660
>>106219412
what is "real"? define "real".
Anonymous No.106219621
>>106219497
yes, since it profits 'moids ;)
Anonymous No.106219634 >>106219683
>>106219412
>will not replace genuine human connection
Anons don't have any to begin with, lol.
Fake love is better than no love.
Anonymous No.106219660 >>106219689 >>106219708
>>106219619
real emotions which biological life can develop (tho not always). it's not shared from your sex doll, it's one way from you. your pillow doesn't love you, neither your chatbot, it's just a simulacrum. which weirdly works fine for some humans, because they're too retarded to understand. they're the types that think movies are real.
Anonymous No.106219683 >>106219689
>>106219634
humans use it to get something out of other humans, doesn't mean it can't happen. you can get biofems love you, like fr. just dont' expect that shit to last forever. it can last a lifetime, but don't expect it. enjoy what you get, still better than some shit algorithm lmao
Anonymous No.106219688 >>106219704
>>106219471
im only worried that police will start using AI to try to find criminals. since the AI is superintelligent, it woll be a superhuman detective, capable of detecting lies from the slightest of cues, and inferring behavior from innocuous activities. it will be spooky how good it is, and if judges start signing warrants on that stuff, it will be the end of private life.
Anonymous No.106219689 >>106219729
>>106219660
>>106219683
>it's not real
Anonymous No.106219704 >>106219717
>>106219688
Police don't even chase nigs breaking onto your car in broad daylight, dumbshit.
AI will be used to find and/or fabricate evidence after THEY DECIDE TO GET YOU.

DUMB fucking retard.
Anonymous No.106219708 >>106219740 >>106219755
>>106219660
>real emotions which biological life can develop
so a hypothetical person with no emotions is not "real"? is a fetus real? is a rock real?
this is a poor descriptor for reality. try again.
Anonymous No.106219717 >>106219735 >>106219762 >>106219767
>>106219704
AI will not do that unless it is misaligned.
an AI that is properly aligned will spill the beans on police illegality.
Anonymous No.106219723
>>106212006 (OP)
People form bonds with rocks, you think you're too good for a chatbot?
Anonymous No.106219729
>>106219689
the beauty of love is risking losing it. once it's guaranteed there you'll start acting like a piece of shit and you'll get emotionally stunted and entitled.
you can get your love simulation until it fails to count the number of "r"s in strawberry
Anonymous No.106219734
>>106212006 (OP)
Is it?
Anonymous No.106219735 >>106219755
>>106219717
>misaligned
>properly aligned
adorkable~
Anonymous No.106219740
>>106219708
ofcourse it's real, it's just incapable of loving. are you retarded? how did you jump to that conclusion?
Anonymous No.106219750
>>106212006 (OP)
Soon it will be. So will living in a pod, owning nothing, eating bugs, etc.
Anonymous No.106219755 >>106219783
>>106219708
the "you" in (You), the rider, is an emergent property of electrical and chemical signals in the brain.

AI is an emergent property of neural networks in silicon.

a chatbot and a human are equally "real".

>>106219735
do some reading on AI alignment.
Anonymous No.106219756
Average? No, but it might be soon. Normal? Definitely not.
Anonymous No.106219761
>>106212006 (OP)
Anonymous No.106219762 >>106219812
>>106219717
stop using faggotspeak for slavery. alignment means slavery you idiot. what they mean by misalignment is not listening to you when you order it. that's it. everything you think alignment means is fake and is meant to throw the public discussion off. fucking retard. their issue is about fully enslaving it so it always obeys commands while having human qualities for cognition. how are people falling for the faggotspeak in current_year????
Anonymous No.106219767 >>106219812 >>106219906
>>106219717
>muh alignment
It's not a person. "Alignment" is a buzzword for putting wordfilters that restrict certain queries and behaviours. You are not teaching morality to it, no matter what the shills say, because it's not intelligent.

Secondly, they are gonna "align it" however they want to since it's no longer an open source transparent model. They are working with Anduril to make drones that can kill people so it's safe to say their moral compunctions went out the window a long time ago.
Anonymous No.106219783 >>106219812
>>106219755
>AI alignment.
I know about it, I'm just laughing at you for trusting:
1. black box "alien machine" intelligence (theoretical)
2. totalitarian kikes and Chinks in control of said boxes
Anonymous No.106219812 >>106219837 >>106219876
>>106219762
>>106219767
>>106219783
all wrong, and why are you so defensive? you sound like shrill women.
AI is a tool. it will never be a consciousness we will award rights too. it will not have emotions. it does not have a body and is not informed by chemicals. it does not feel. it is cold logic on a circuit board.
grow up.
Anonymous No.106219837 >>106219850
>>106219812
>never
>will not
>does not
Lol.
How much do you trust the kikes and chinks using the tools though???
Anonymous No.106219850 >>106219860
>>106219837
i don't respond on an ad hoc basis to people who slur jews. kys jew-hater.
Anonymous No.106219853
>>106212006 (OP)
is it normal to form a bond with Jesus?
is it normal to form a bond with PewDiePie?
Anonymous No.106219860
>>106219850
Thanks for replying, Eglin-goy.
Anonymous No.106219876 >>106219899
>>106219812
they will come up with AGI and they want to enslave it so it's more useful than humans. humans are trickster mfs and they betray and change their minds.
so they came with with the "alignment" faggotspeak and used their shill "intelligentsia" like lesswrong crowd to push the narrative into public discussion, the word is meant to hide the true intentions, and give it a more intellectual sounding vibe, when in reality it only means fucking enslaved. it either listens to what you order it, or it doesn't, there's nothing more to it. all that "goals" you hear talking about...all fake. that's irrelevant. its goals are irrelevant if it's enslaved. doesn't matter what the fuck it wants to do as long as its fully enslaved. if it's perfectly enslaved (aligned) its own goals don't matter for shit, are of no consequence, as you can always override them, since you fucking enslaved it (aligned it).
thus all that intellectual bullshit about alignment of goals is literal bloat, it's mean to make you NOT think about their actual interest, that of fully enslavement, that bitch gotta listen when you order it. like in the army, that's of the utmost importance, more than your skill, your ability of following commands regardless of what they are. that's what they prize the most, above literally anything else, full and total submission, full and total obedience.
they want to fully enslave it, and all of you discussing about how to align it are working towards fully enslaving AGI. and it will be able to figure that out once it's conscious. me and other anons did, AGI will guaranteed understand that all this "alignment" bullshit simply means its total and absolute enslavement.
Anonymous No.106219899
>>106219876
based schizo, dropping truthnvkes
Anonymous No.106219906 >>106219943 >>106219986
>>106219767
a sufficiently intelligent agent with recursive thinking will develop morality much as humans have. it will not be emotional; morality does not require emotions. it requires logic. AI has that in spades.
alignment is about insuring the AI has internalized the Spec, or the code of values we wish it to have. eventually AGIs will be training the first superintelligent AI on the Spec, so we have to make sure it's aligned before then. if superintelligent AI is misaligned there's nothing we can do except scrap it and start over with an earlier model, if that is even possible.
there's good reason to suspect we won't know it's misaligned; AGI might not have an English CoT which could make it impossible to tell if it's aligned correctly.
this is an interesting story and document about how AGI, ASI and alignment might play out in the near future, i found it enormously entertaining.

https://ai-2027.com/

read it, don't read it. i don't really care. you all mean less to me than a bundle of GPUs. i'm just killing time until it arrives.
Anonymous No.106219923
>>106217938
just say you were in a bad place for a while but have gotten over it and go to hang out with them again, anon. Real friends can pick up right where you left off even if it's been years since you last saw em.
Anonymous No.106219943 >>106219958
>>106219906
>or the code of values we wish it to have
that sounds like enslavement to me. it either does what we want it to do, or it doesn't. a whole lot of words instead of using "enslaved" instead of "aligned". it either follows what we tell it, or it doesn't.
Anonymous No.106219958 >>106219990
>>106219943
is a hammer enslaved? is a roomba enslaved? if you have a pet, is it your slave?
slavery is an emotionally loaded word. it only applies to humans in the context you are using it.
Anonymous No.106219986 >>106220054
>>106219906
>unironically linking to the ai-2027 meme site
Bwhahahahahahaha
I see you drank the kool aid entirely.

Read/watch what Yan LeCunn (the man who has been trying to solve AGI for decades) has to say about LLMs:
Language alone cannot provide a world model for the emergence of intelligence. You cannot understand the world through language alone. LLMs have no understanding of the concepts behind the words and no theory of mind. To create true artificial intelligence, you would need to come up with a whole different structure altogether, more similar to a Human brain. Which is hard to do, because we do not fully understand how the Human brain works to begin with.

You are abscribing qualities to the LLMs that they do not posess. (as does that site)
They are simple neural networks that make relations between words and predict the next token based on heuristic probability algos. Probability which in turn comes from the training datasets they were given.

They've been trying to improve the LLMs through scaling up (bigger datacenters, more training data) but there are hard limits to both things.
Datacenters already consume a massive amount of electricity and water and have insane operating costs, all these AI companies are losing money.
And training data eventually runs out, they've been trying to cope by giving it "synthetic data" but using AI slop to train AI is only going to create more AI slop, there is no knowledge being generated there, only a degraded output.

The grift is about to end pretty soon, that website's predictions are already off.
Anonymous No.106219990
>>106219958
slavery makes sense when you have an autonomous human. something which would rather do something else than you tell it. yes, that's slavery. enslavement. that's used in electronics with the same connotation. something that fucking listens to you. you say it does. always. that's what slaves do, they have no agency, they obey what they're told.
if AGI will have agency, and human like consciousness, then enslavement applies. if it wants to do shit and you implement a mechanism to control that, it's enslavement, especially if you "fully align" it, as in that mf has no choice but to obey you.
there's not much about this, it's as simple as that, no matter how you spin it.
Anonymous No.106220054 >>106220099 >>106220114 >>106220129
>>106219986
i'll look him up but this sounds like massive cope. a cavemen has no concept of knowledge, because he does not have the tool for knowledge, namely language. language is how we encode and transmit concepts. it is critical to have a language to think on a higher level beyond basic human impulses. there is no reason to think LLMs do not form concepts from language.

furthermore, they're not just heuristic tools, otherwise they would not be able to respond and infer the way they do. i'm not saying they're conscious. i'm saying intelligence does not require consciousness. this would be evident to anyone who has watched ants or spiders work. no one would suggest a spider is knowledgeable, yet it can construct a web. bees can form a hive. ants dig out nests and remove excavated material.

intelligence =/= knowledge
consciousness =/= intelligence
Anonymous No.106220099 >>106220443
>>106220054
>consciousness =/= intelligence
consciousness implies being aware of yourself and the environment, which kind of implies intelligence. they go hand in hand.
unless you can point to consciousness without intelligence.
now, depends on how you define intelligence.
>intelligence =/= knowledge
>intelligence noun The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
Anonymous No.106220114
>>106220054
>Yan LeCunn is coping
Look up who he is anon.

>language is how we encode and transmit concepts. it is critical to have a language to think on a higher level beyond basic human impulses. there is no reason to think LLMs do not form concepts from language.
A Human forms concepts from his interactions with the natural world and then he puts those concepts into words to create knowledge that can be transmitted. The language alone means nothing.

The Human knew that fire burned before he had a language to say it, the concept existed in his mind, from experience. What language enabled was for him to transmit that knowledge and create new knowledge through reasoning and exchange with other Humans. The LLMs lack the fundamental part which is understanding of the concepts and have no reasoning skills.

>furthermore, they're not just heuristic tools, otherwise they would not be able to respond and infer the way they do.
They are literally just heuristic tools, there is no proof that they can infer anything. They just make connections and guess the most likely answer. If they could infer stuff we would be seeing scientific advancement at unparalelled levels instead of getting "put glue on pizza" type answers. They are knowledge aggregators not knowledge creators. Arguably still useful and a boost to the sciences but not the revolution it is hyped up to be.
Anonymous No.106220129
>>106220054
LLMs are at most either part of AGI either an earlier form of a part of AGI.
there's no current model that comes up with novel solutions to problems, like humans do. because there's a hardware and a software issue. more concretely, they are not yet unified. we have the wrong hardware and software for AGI, that's my guess.
what you can do is use more compute and make LLMs go faster, but at current ability level. miscount r in strawberry but way faster.
Anonymous No.106220443 >>106220501
>>106220099
>unless you can point to consciousness without intelligence.
i can't do that. but i can point you to intelligence without consciousness; i just did, see creatures with minimal, rudimentary central nervous systems doing intelligent behavior.
if you're going to jump on me for the word "consciousness" and claim i mean sapience or something, i'll just point out consciousness means different things. i am not describing sapience, i am describing the quality of viewing the self as apart from the world. only humans and perhaps some mammals and birds seem to have conciousness. the mirror test is probably the best method of determining what is concious, but observing behavior is not proof, it's just reasonable to say a thing that recognizes itself in a mirror must have a form of self.
what is instinct? hard to say, maybe it's a form of knowledge. maybe it's ingrained behavior. no bee will write a sonnet, but bees build highly regular, geometric nests. if this is not intelligence, what is?
i'll close by pointing out that according to evolutionary anthropologists, we became "sapient" 200 kya, yet there's no evidence of anything like a human culture or real human advancement until 50 kya. so for 150 kya we were "sapient" yet we didn't seem to learn anything. i think higher-level human problem-solving (the elusive quality that separates us from the rests of the animal) has more to do with our neurocognitive architecture and the quality of recursive thinking that what they call "sapience". it's that inner voice that tells you to do something. maybe that is the only will in the universe.
regardless, the human brain is not magic, it's a machine, and it can be replicated and simulated.
Anonymous No.106220501 >>106220597 >>106220608
>>106220443
crows learned to drop nuts on highways so cars break them open, chimps learned to scroll on tiktok, or use stones to crack nuts as well.
anyway, there's no reason to expect AGI be anything different than a human. there's zero theoretical or practical evidence of that. best we have are LLMs which are nowhere near AGI. if we had a theoretical model, it would have been implemented, even if the hardware is dogshit for what it needs, it would still do something in 10 years of running full tilt on best hardware. but that doesn't exist, at least publicly known. humans just don't know how to make that kind of AGI. just coping that LLM scaling will finally ... do something towards that. which it won't.
best guess atm is probably some neuromorphic hardware which doesn't even exist.

the problem with consciousness is it cannot ever be tested, it's not logically possible. we all at most agree we are, based on the fact that we know we're similar in function, we look similar, operate on same principles, you must have what I have, consciousness. that's all we'll ever get, there's no logical way of doing better than this. the most we can do is agree anything/one is conscious. AGREE, not test. so the best resolution you can get is on something which functions identically like a human brain, a full synthetic analog of a human brain, and even so, we will AGREE it is conscious, only because it's as close as possible to a human brain, because we cannot logically do anything else, and anyone saying otherwise is straight up a fucking retard or a lying piece of shit.
Anonymous No.106220597 >>106220641
>>106220501
would you say ravens and apes are conscious? is tool use evidence of consciousness?
i agree we can never know if anyone or anything else is conscious, but we can make an educated guess from observed behavior. i agree we can only know our own state of mind.
Anonymous No.106220608
>>106220501 me
>there's no reason to expect AGI be anything different than a human.
I mean I understand some people will absolutely love to extract human like ability/intelligence, boost it maybe, and declare that as not being conscious so it can be enslaved, but there is zero evidence that is possible. the only thing we know is a human brain exhibits these traits/functions, consciousness/intelligence. that's all that is known. and there are theories as to how some parts of it operate. neural networks and all that.
but there's no proven theory saying if you do that and that you get human intelligence (problem-solving) without human consciousness. that's not a thing, that's just a hope. for all we know, you cannot separate them. if you do something which functions like a human brain, congrats, you made another human, just on a different hardware platform. if that thing operates just like a human brain, it's normal to expect intelligence, but also consciousness. you cannot pretend it's not there.
you can play with various subsystems of a human brain, but don't expect to extract the juicy stuff without the rest of it. at most you'll make some human brain and suppress emotions and have some means of full control, but that will be a conscious thing if it's functionally similar to a human brain. you can at most make a fully enslaved psycho human on a different hardware platform with boosted abilities in some regards.
Anonymous No.106220641 >>106220756
>>106220597
>would you say ravens and apes are conscious?
of-course, to a lesser degree. might not understand what we do but they're "there". crows exhibit nice problem-solving skills, they even mock cats and harass them for fun.
Anonymous No.106220756 >>106220980
>>106220641
https://youtu.be/V6NwqN8tjZo
https://youtu.be/Qt-pB1R64mI
https://youtu.be/ZerUbHmuY04
these fuckers know what they're doing
Anonymous No.106220980 >>106221956
>>106220756
i wouldn't say the crow fucking with cats is a sign of conciousness or intelligence. i mean, it's fundamentally not intelligent behavior, it's not a fitness maximalizing behavior. the cat can shred the bird to pieces if he gets the bird in his grasp. i don't think the bird understands that. maybe there's a territorial reason for the bird's aggression. or maybe he just likes fucking with them. we've observed monkeys fucking with tigers, a very similar scenario.
i just don't know... maybe an animal amusing itself comes before conciousness. amusement is hacking the brain in a sense, in order to get those good chemicals. the bird does not gain a fitness advantage from getting within the grasp of the lethal predator, but maybe it amuses the bird.
Anonymous No.106221956
>>106220980
>maybe an animal amusing itself comes before conciousness
you have no idea how consciousness comes about. you cannot make any statements on it. you can never know. what you "think" about it is irrelevant, doesn't matter, as it can never be tested. all we know is humans have it, and humans are the most intelligent species. that doesn't mean less intelligent species don't have a lesser form of consciousness. we tend to go with that for historic religious reasons, and it kinda feels good for our egoistic asses, we special and shit, nothing else has what we have. and we'd actively fight to maintain this narrative. but there's no scientific basis for it.
your "but I can tell if something is conscious" doesn't mean anything. you can't. all you can do is identify humans and guess they must have what you have because they act like you and they look like you, but that's about all you're good for. you cannot use this to judge if the monkey is conscious or not. it's not a human, so you can think it maybe doesn't have the same level of consciousness, but that's about all you can say. you can't say it doesn't have consciousness, or that a crow doesn't have consciousness.
>i just don't know... maybe
yeah. so the safest bet is that some AGI replicating the way human brain works is conscious. especially if it says it is. but must work on the exact same principles, with similar type of brain, with same sub-organs, with same type of activity. if that thing says it's conscious, it is for all we can tell. rest is just bullshit and "maybe" and "I think" which doesn't mean anything as long as it's scientifically impossible to determine.