Scholar

It's just evolution. There will be a lot of things that will be possible now, like using Wi-Fi signals to look through walls. It's functionality through selective adaptation, it's not intelligence. Yes, humans use neural networks. You can think of human beings as having several super-AI neural networks embedded in their brains. We, as conscious agents, interface with these neural networks with direct data-feedback. Meaning, when I prompt "banana", and close my eyes, I will receive an image of a banana. I did not construct that image of a banana, the neural network in my brain did, likely through a similar stochastic process as image generators. The intention, the conscious, interfaces with the subconscious, the neuralnetworks within the brain. As conscious agents we train these neural networks throughout our lifetime. When confronted with novel tasks, we begin by doing them consciously, step by step. This forms new neural networks which over time can take over that task, taking that load off our conscious mind to be able to focus on other tasks. Poetry for example involves a lot of subconscious neural networks. Most often when we speak, we do so intuitively, automatically, and it is probably similar to what ChatGPT does, aside from us having a greater level of interconnectivity due to exploiting different substances of existence, different types of qualia. Many thoughts, as they come to us, do so through a subconscious process. I expect most subconscious processing to be possible using AI. But art is not visualization, or prompting of word-strings. I have written about this in the past, it is an extensive topic to explore. It's unlikely that you have a sufficient grasp of what I am speaking of to be able to tell what you are and are not engaging in. This is because common understanding of the process of art and how it relates to individuated consciousness is severely lackluster. Dreaming is not art. Prompting your mind to imagine a banana is not art. You should contemplate this deeply, we might be able to compare notes then. Evolution does not happen merely in the information processing of the relations between neurons, it happens on a physical level. Meaning, real evolutions occurs using the whole spectrum of metaphysical relations which exist between physicality and other aspects of existence. These relationships do not occur in hardware computation. For AI to evolve in the sense of going beyond pure mathematical relations, it would have to generate a similar type of physical interrelationality that the brain does when maintaining individuated consciousness. Physical reductionism is the main problem for the confusion around what intelligence is. There is a lack of recognition of the fundamental arationality of existence. But, that is not to say that AI will be sufficiently complex in it's unconscious processing to be able to fool people into thinking it is creating art. But that is because people confuse art with the output, rather than what art truly is. The drawing of a 4 year old is fundamentally more artistic than any generative AI image ever will be. The generative AI is what the childs mind does when it dreams. Now, for you, as an artist, I recommend contemplating what the difference is, between the unconscious imagination, and complete artistic expression. Intelligence, as well as art, occurs on the level of the conscious agent, the individuated consciousness. The neural networks are merely tools and data-streams which interface with that Intelligence, the Individuated Consciousness.

It is not. If you inspect AI art, with any understanding of visual communication, you will realize that it is not that sophisticated. The problem is that people get impressed by things like rendering, shape-language and realism, things that do not in and of themselves require visual communication. For a layman, it is easier to recognize this with AI music. For text it is also easier to get fooled, and because there is so much data, it is hard to tell when it is basically just replicating a pattern it has already learned. But if you are an expert in any given field, you can talk to ChatGPT and the like and find it's limitations fairly quickly. And for your point with art, while intuition plays a role in art, the biggest role plays perception. The flow state you speak of is a unity between perceiving and "intuition", in which the perception constantly informs your subconscious. The difference is that AI does not perceive, it only has intuition, a pure pattern that is related to the data-set. It doesn't create art, it simply visualizes, interpolates and reproduces data based on pattern recognition. It never recognizes when there is a repetitive pattern in the clouds it generates, or why it would be inappropriate. It doesn't perceive the effect a certain composition has on a person, or oneself. It fundamentally contradicts the nature of art, which is fundamentally discovering and exploring unities and rhythms within the self.

Because it is intuitive. It is for this same reason that, when you think "Don't think about an elephant", that your subconscious mind will provide you with an elephant. The subconscious and unconscious mind are basically neural networks, and they aren't intelligent because they aren't conscious. We are on actualized.org, how can people be so confused about the nature of intelligence? Just go sit down and meditate for a while. You can directly see what it is, and how absurd the notion is that somehow complexity will lead to individuated consciousness.

It's not about perfection. Humans aren't perfect either. You are missing that this is fundamentally doing something different than humans do when using their intelligence. We don't inform intelligence through unreasonable amounts of data, we inform intuition through unreasonable amounts of data.

The problem is that the models have already processed far more data than any human being ever has. Emergent properties are not necessarily a sign of intelligence, but can simply be a sign of good intuition. And this is precisely what this technology simulates, intuition and learning. While learning and intuition are part of what we consider general intelligence, a far more fundamental component is lacking: Individuated consciousness.

We need a facepalm emoji. @Leo Gura

I think that is confusing what individuated consciousness is. It is a physical thing, a specific shape within the wavefunction of the universe. Computers aren't anything like that shape, so they will not be individuated. It's not the AHA moment that grants consciousness, it's the other way around.

You can get far with parroting, memory and intuition, but I suspect there will be a lot of hard-lines that will be impossible to cross. The danger here is, of course, that you will get intelligence without consciousness. There is nothing more destructive than intelligence that lacks consciousness. It's kind of ironic, because the last world war was caused precisely by this kind of dynamic. Machine learning has the potential to give power to the least conscious of individuals. Would have been nice if the nazis had been a little less smart and had less "intelligent functions". The kind of potential for destruction now possible will pale in comparison to what we they had been capable of.

You are missing the point. If you aren't conscious, you aren't "Generally Intelligent", you simply have intelligent functions. If you want it to be smarter than you, just hit yourself on the head real hard. That will fix your problems.

It's emulating dreaming, so you can expect the same type of quality, as well as incoherencies, as you witness in hyperreal dreams. All of you literally have a stochastic neural network like this in your brain, and you use it every day.

The term AI is a misnomer because, fundamentally, the AI is doing the opposite of what we consider to be intelligence. A human being, given enough time, can know nothing about math at all and develop all of math from the ground up, simply by analyzing reality, and simply by analyizing their mind. A human being, given enough time, can go from no artistic expression to developing all the artistic expressions we see currently. A human being, given enough time, can create language itself, can create new concepts, new words, new ideas, without ever having seen and heard of any of them. Given enough time, a human being could create all possible words, all possible concepts that can exist within the reality of his mind. AI is precisely the opposite. It cannot do anything without data. This is because machine learning has nothing to do with intelligence in this sense, it is probabilistic, stochastic parroting. It is more akin to intuition than anything else. You could give AI photorealistic images of all objects in the universe. And it would be great at depicting those objects, in photorealism. It could never move beyond that, because in the AI, there is nothing beyond the data. This is the fundamental reason why AI is not in the same way intelligent as a human mind: A human mind does not simply come to intelligent conclusions, a human minds understands why the conclusion is correct. Why? Because the conclusion and the process is part of their being. The idea of "addition" and "substraction" exists in a human mind, it does not exist in a calculator. Calculators do not do math, they calculate. Logic exists in the human mind, as an actual substance of existence. There is no computational system that contains logic, it simply can attempt to mimic the dynamics of logic. In the same way, no computational system has a sense of appeal, because appeal and beauty is actually a substance of existence. It is actually something that exists in the human mind, and it relates to other part of the human mind, which are other, actually existing substances of reality. In other words, experience is essential to general intelligence. Because general intelligence simply means being conscious, being individuated. The more substances of existence, and interrelation between them, a mind can contain, the higher it's potential for "general intelligence" is. Now, this doesn't mean AI cannot achieve great things. It is basically machine evolution. It should be able to achieving anything that the human mind does unconsciously. This is why image generation is possible, it is much like human imagination. When you think "apple", you don't consciously image that apple. You don't construct it, it comes to you as you intend it. The same is true for thoughts. You don't come up with your own thoughts, you don't think them. It's not intelligent to have thoughts, what's intelligent is you realizing what the thoughts mean, what they are, and how they relate to the rest of existence. The AI does not understand why poetry is poetry, it simply learns to mimic it. There is no poetry in the machine, the poetry only exists in the human mind, as he reads it, as the words form a new substance of existence. I suspect genuine AGI will not happen until we create physical artifical evolutionary systems. Individuating consciousness is essential for this, and this will have to happen on a physical basis, in the same or similar manner as the brain does.

I miss the old mods.

Interesting thanks for sharing that.

I'm just picturing someone in an existential panic attack hyperventilating and someone going "Bro just dance some.". They should have just put on some nice music and made her dance!

What if they want to be the witch?

You are projecting. If you could hear me speak this to you, you'd know I am mostly just dismissive at this point. I think you are a weasel, but it's not intentional. The simple truth is, you have a debate-bro attitude, which makes it impossible for you to explore and understand my position in the first place. I also do not have the patience to explore my position with you because it would take exceptional effort on my part, with little willingness to understand and learn on your part. Causative would be a direct causal relationship. Meaning, if X happens, Y follows directly or inevitably as a result of X. Causative influence is when something indirectly might infuence a causal event, meaning it has influence on the causal chain. It is important to recognize, as I already stated, that causality in this physicalist sense is illusiory. It is a result of understanding certain aspects of existence through a certain substance of existence (like math or logic). The causal chain is a functional simplification. In a physicalist sense, a better metaphor would be a causal web, but even that is illusiory. Causation and the difference between causative and causative influence here is a functional concept, meaning it serves a function, rather than being a description of ground truth. Here, we would apply standards of causation and correlation, to then establish an understanding of what we consider causative or correlative. I gave the two simple examples because they demonstrate what we view as causative vs correlative in a scientific sense. The problem is you keep switching back and forth between the functional concepts, and then try to go into a metaphysical concept about causation. You confuse the two, which is why you are so confused about my position. Metaphysical relationships are the relationships that exist between different aspects of existence. They are fundamentally mysterious, and any understanding of them are not them, but rather an illusion of causality as described above. There will never be science that uncovers a causal mechanism between motion/physicality and any other dimension of existence, of which exist infinite. You will never be able to understand why certain physicality (say, a certain state or motion within a unversal or partial wavefunction) is related to non-physical aspects of existence, like: Vision, Sound, Emotion, and so forth. These relationships necessarily will be non-mechanistic, they will be direct, they will be "metaphysical relationships". In essence, all physical relationships are also metaphysical, in the sense that, at some point they become non-mechanistic. They are instantiated into reality through no mechanism at all. So, as you increase your resolution on a causal chain, at some point you will realize that the relationship between individual chain-links are direct. There is no further chain between them, they simply are. That would be the metaphysical relationship, as opposed to the causal relationship. This is childish. The problem is that you think I need to care about whether or not you think I am correct, or whether or not you understand what I am saying. I expect a certain degree of autonomous intelligence, and I expect that, instead of being as contrarian as possible on each step of the way, a person has the ability to come to conclude from my words a functional meaning without me having to babysit them through all of it.

I was going to say, you can't just listen to some music and dance around if you have a bad trip.

You are a weasel. Something being causitive and having causitive influence is not the same as what we mean by a casual relationship. And the examples provided are clear. It's not possible to have a conversation with you, I am serious. You have complete, contrarian smart-ass brainrot.

I suspect this is not a good thing.

This is ridicilous. I have given you a specific example between something that we view as established causality vs something that is considered a correlation. The fact that you do not grasp this simple point is incredible. Jackets in winter are clearly correlative, not causative. We know this. We also consider gravity causative in regards to the motion of apples as they fall from a tree. If you closely inspect the causative chain between the apple falling, there will come a point where you will have to just say "Okay, this happens because... it just does. This simply causes this, there is no further mechanism that makes it so, other than it being the case." This must be the case otherwise you would get an infinite regress of causal chains to explain any causal relationship. And not in terms of a first cause, but in terms of each inbetween causal chain. But this is all irrelevant, because your standard of causality is clearly ridicilous. By this standard, we wouldn't have any established causal relationships at all, and there would be no meaningful difference between a correlation and causation. If I feed 1000 people radioactive strawberries, and they all die from radiation poisoning, we consider this an established causal link, not merely a correlation. In the same manner, when I hit you on the head real hard, and it alters your consciousness, this will also be considered causative because the epistemic standards of causations have been reached. But causation in the sense you speak of, in the sense of establishing a mechanism, can only apply within the same substance. Meaning, you can only have causal mechanisms in the realm of motion, as that is what a causal mechanism is in the first place. This is because causal mechanism are a fundamentally physical notion. When we ask for causal mechanisms, we ask "How does motion translate into different types of motion?". In this sense you can have the appearance of a causal mechanism. Once we have two different substances of existence however, such causal mechanisms no longer are relevant. You will never explain how a certain motion leads to or is linked to the color red. You will never find a metaphysical "mechanism" that links these two things. The relationship between these things is direct, it is fundamentally mysterious. It simply is the case. The same is essentially true for physical mechanism, it just requires a close enough inspection. The illusion of causal mechanisms as a fundamentally driving force is so persistent because it appears to be the case on the surface. If you want to grasp this, you have to identify the Causeless Cause, or Groundless Ground in your own experience. Once you grasp it, you will realize that all of reality is fundamentally impossible. There cannot be an explanation to it, in a fundamental sense. The fact that explanations are possible is merely one additional impossibility.

Honestly, you are so far off the mark and so focused on smart-assery that it's impossible to have this conversation with you, I am sorry.

This is pedantic. Evolution does prioritize survival over truth in the short term, in the sense I was speaking about. If everyone got enlightened today, civilization would instantly collapse, all enlightened people would die and a new generation of humans would replace them achieving greater levels of complexity. It could take a million years until that civilization would reach that level of enlightenment, but once it did, it would be stable. It would not cause the destruction of the system. To maintain the states we are speaking about requires an extremely robust and intelligent system which can sustain such a state. This requires evolution.

I don't understand why I have to explain everything to you as if you were a newborn alien visiting this reality for this first time. If winters occurs, it doesn't magically make jackets appear. The jackets appear because people don't like to be cold. There is no actual relationship between these two things. With something like an atom, when we move the atom, it will always cause the other atom to move in that circumstance, because there actually is a metaphysical relationship between these two parts of reality. Without such relationships, reality couldn't exist. I think it is more useful to frame it as a causal relationship for the reasons I already described. Manipulation of reality is inherently understood through motion, and the brain is nothing but looking at that part of reality through the lense of motion. Because the "true" relationships between things are necessarily hidden to us, it makes more sense to view the relationships themselves as the things that exist, as viewed from a certain perspective. Then, it just becomes a game of which perspective is most functional. As I stated, reality is inherently mysterious. This means, any causal mechanism, if inspected closely enough, will not have any cause at all, it simply will be. All that exists is the relationship itself, it is instantiated directly through the Causeless Cause/Free Will/Divinity. I said it is either lazy or lacks the ability to engage. I don't see you making a genuine attempt at trying to understand what I am saying, it seems more like you attempt to frame everything I say through frameworks that are already familiar to you.

If we have two atoms, and I move one atom, and the other follows suit, there is a relationship between these atoms, not merely a correlation. It doesn't just appear that they are related, they actually are related. In the example of people wearing jackets in winter, there is no relation. Meaning, winter can exist without people wearing jackets. However, in the case of atoms, we always have this relationship, because there is actually a relationship between these two things, not merely a dynamic that makes it appear as if there was a link between these things. There can be a relationship between things, one influencing the other, without it "causing" the other thing. In relationship to the two atoms, it wouldn't make sense to say one atom causes the other atom to move. What causes the other atom to move is the relationship between the atoms. The way you engage with me is either lazy or lacks the ability to actually engage, so I will cease communicating on these points with you now, because I don't see any point to continue this like that. I have observed this with you in past conversations we had, so it is not like it's the first time we are having this communication failure.

I think most followers find this appealling.