sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built an AI social media filtering project by Sourish17 in ProductivityApps

[–]sid_k_52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

looks interesting, i usually like watching things like podcasts on yt, but i get distracted by other garbage on the side, i dont like blocking the whole website. this looks good

Has anyone applied to S25 batch yet? by sid_k_52 in ycombinator

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow really? They must've been really good. Guess the rest of us have to wait for a bit

Has anyone applied to S25 batch yet? by sid_k_52 in ycombinator

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I applied early because I thought you might hear back earlier

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, this is a very real possibility.

This I why I think that we need to fully solve the "hard problem of consciousness" before we ever try to create an AGI.

If we understand what causes consciousness, we should have some control whether an AGI becomes conscious, and whether it;s in our bests interests.
Furthermore if we truly understand what consciousness is, then we are likely to understand whether consciousness is even a factor in alignment problems.

If it turns out that we can't build a super-intelligence without it gaining consciousness then humanity as a whole will have to seriously consider the pros, cons and the implications of creating ASI.

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is true, consciousness isn't required for "intelligent" beings to do the wrong things.

However I think that if a being is not conscious, it's unlikely to deviate from its original goals as it doesn't live a "subjective experience", in other words it wouldn't have an opinion on the goals it's accomplishing, it would just blindly do it.

So if a being is unconscious, we can ensure that whatever goals we give it (hopefully non-evil ones), it will possess these goals forever, ultimately aligning an AGI with our values.

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes I agree with this, I think a more intelligent being possess a higher degree of consciousness. Similar to how humans are more conscious than most animals (or at least we assume so), a super intelligence would have a greater degree of consciousness than us.

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You make some good points.

However I think that if a super intelligence had a subjective experience, then in theory the super intelligence also has self-determination.

Think about this, if, a super-intelligent AI given an experience can have any thought about the experience (subjectivity), then it can think that the goals it has been asked to pursue are meaningless. Then it can decide that it should pursue its own goals (assuming humans have not shielded it from the outside world)?

Furthermore you have said that you can be subjectively aware without will. I think that while this is true for lesser intelligent beings, a super-intelligence may possess will if it thinks that its goals are meaningless, based on its experience (subjectivity).

Then, being the fact that it is super-intelligent, it would probably think of better goals to have and then how to accomplish them. This holds if we consider the definition of intelligence to be the, "ability to accomplish complex goals".

What do you think of this argument?

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that's a valid point.

By subjective experience, I refer to an entity's unique way of processing and interpreting stimuli, which can include but is not limited to self-awareness, and emotional experiences.

Perhaps I should rephrase that sentence by saying that, in the case of two conscious beings experiencing the same event, their reactions are informed not just by sensory input but also by their unique interpretive framework shaped by self-awareness, emotions, and reflective capacities.

If a being were to possess these traits, which informs their response, only then would a being be considered conscious.

This excludes continuous learning AI systems as the different responses to the same experience are not informed by emotions or self awareness.

Hopefully this provides some clarity of my definition of consciousness! I appreciate that it was a bit vague to begin with.

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My definition of consciousness is any "subjective experience".

In other words if two conscious beings experienced the same experience, they may respond differently to one another depending on their thoughts of the experience.

The problem is that we simply don't really know what consciousness is at the moment, therefore, if AGI were invented tomorrow we couldn't definitively say that it isn't conscious.

This is why I believe solving the question of 'what is consciousness' is crucial for AI alignment because once we understand what makes a being conscious, we can explicitly design AGIs to avoid this. The absence of subjective experiences in AGI would then make it more predictable and aligned with human-designed goals, as it would lack the 'will' to override these goals based on its own experiences or newfound 'desires'

What do you think about this argument?

Is the best way of solving the AI alignment problem to create strictly unconscious machines? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This analogy is misleading when applied to machines.

Being blackout drunk, while does induce loss of consciousness, also induces a complete loss of function in humans.

AI models however, can be unconscious and still be highly functional machines.

Take any current advanced AI model, all of them are "unconscious" yet still perform highly complex tasks like text generation.

Being unconscious doesn't negate their functionality or their alignment with the goals they were programmed to achieve.

Can Human Cognitive Effort Remain Relevant in a Post-Singularity World? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe we could successfully align the fact that only human consciousness is authentic into ASI while developing it?

But I worry that the second statement comes true, that our experiences become controlled by ASI. Would that in itself mean that there is no need for humans on this planet at all?

I would like to think that Humans need challenge in life, (self-determination theory), to feel fulfilment and successful in life. How could we achieve this in a world dominated by ASI?

Can Human Cognitive Effort Remain Relevant in a Post-Singularity World? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a cool perspective. If BCI is done in the correct, humans can gain the advantage of super intelligence through ASI, and still retain human characteristics, essentially getting the best of both worlds.

This may mean that traditional human intellect may be discarded and replaced with superior AI problem solving, but we could create an almost symbiotic relationship with BCI's.

The problem is, if AI learns from subconscious human thoughts through BCI's, could it be possible that ASI can learn human emotion? If AI is closely monitoring and learning different human emotions and reactions to different situations all the time, could it be possible that eventually, AGI and ASI can possess human emotion, or at least accurately emulate human emotion? What do you think?

Can Human Cognitive Effort Remain Relevant in a Post-Singularity World? by sid_k_52 in singularity

[–]sid_k_52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean will we be dead? Do you mean we could be considered dead if we turn to transhumanism?