[forgetfulness]

> Inability to recognize intelligence is and will be devastating.

It's a pop-culture quote from a movie that was no masterpiece, I know, but "I, Robot" presented in two sentences an argument for having more sober expectations on what machine intelligence could be capable of, and of our own

> Detective Del Spooner: "Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a… canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?"

> Sonny: "Can you?"

We're discrediting the capabilities of current machine learning models for being unable of producing the thoughts that many, many people are unable to either.

Alright, so the models are not at the level that us HN philosopher kings hold ourselves to be, and they won't be Senior Architects of distributed systems or what have you very soon, but what does it say about Average Joe, slightly-above-Average Joe, and their economic prospects? Specially since in the West and much of the developing world, we were taking solace in the idea that a service economy comprised of knowledge workers would provide plenty of opportunities on a political and economic landscape where manufacture was gone, or had never arrived.

[mdp2021]

-- Pseudo Detective Del Spooner: "Can a robot lift that object?"

-- Pseudo Sonny: "Can you?"

-- Pseudo Detective Del Spooner: "Ha-ha. So what the #!@! is a robot doing there, not doing what is required? I cannot, and I do not stand there clueless"

What is being engineered, toys for the satisfaction of some idle decadent sympathy urge? Have cats disappeared from the world?

> We're discrediting

We are shocked that an overly large number of individuals expect stones to bleed, and intelligence to pour out of machines that do not have intelligence coded inside, and that instead have unintelligence - acritical repetition - coded inside.

> what does it say about Average Joe

That he should catch up with his nature, if he shows the critical capacities of a simulacrum that has none.

> not at the level

No, no, no: it is not a matter of quantity but of quality: if you do not implement it or its origin, it will not be there.

> [Asimov]

Asimov is relevant. For example, I remember his idea that the State comes from Agriculture (~10000 BC), in the need to plan irrigation, or that the Abel vs Cain story could be a parallel of the political consequences of lands denied to pastors. Now: those seem to be good ideas, and their production can be an interesting goal. But there is something /before/ "creativity", or "advanced pattern recognition": it is /intelligence/, meaning that Asimov, after having spawned those hypoteses, has /vetted/ them as a required duly activity before confirming them in his set of founded hypotheses. You have to use intelligence, you have to have intelligence, and if you want to do AGI, you have to implement intelligence!!!

[forgetfulness]

And many among the Average Joes will not measure up to this ideal man of science and art. In truth you'll see that I'm not advocating for the rights of as-of-yet non-sapient computer programs, but to think of what this means about people.

If we're setting the bar of personhood or dignity to being exceptional researchers and engineers, it doesn't bode well for the masses that aren't and won't be. Maybe this will result in a society of leisure where everyone can be that! I wouldn't bet on it, there's already more PhDs in the sciences and humanities than society can fit, and humans may just not work that way.

You're already dismissing concerns about the welfare of the merely average, for being unfit when competing with the Machine Learning models we may have in the near future.

[mdp2021]

> You're already dismissing concerns about the welfare of the merely average

This writer individually: no, not literally «dismissing», it is just that I could not grasp precisely your point in this specific area. And I would say, as I wrote just earlier, «Inability to recognize intelligence is and will be devastating»: it already happens that an inability to discriminate ("It takes it to see it") will hide from the sight to some manager the critical risks that the underdeveloped sense of some workers will pose, and such risk will increase when they will have to compete with even riskier and less endowed entities that may be confused for acceptable - since this is what has been showing even here in the past times.

This issue comes from a devaluation of actual intelligence.

> If we're setting the bar of personhood or dignity to being exceptional researchers and engineers

Not really. Look, a few weeks ago this HN member had some heavy exchange with others to which it was said "there is no intelligence if there is no critical thinking", and some arrived to call that position "delirious". Now a rebuttal would have been, "Ask your grandmother". Because there is a "high culture", that of the Professor and the Professional, and "low culture", that of the Teacher and of the Relative, it does not take the former to have good judgement - the latter suffices plentifully, when not polluted.

So, you do not need to have the bar set to «exceptional researchers and engineers» - just a good grandmother. Who could have been an «exceptional researchers and engineer», in case, if life so determined - because "the requirements were there", available.

[forgetfulness]

Invoking the image of the woman that may have been denied opportunities because of her gender in the 1950s is an emotional appeal to convince oneself that inside every human is a latent Leonardo da Vinci.

[mdp2021]

A million times no:

the point was very definitely not about «hav[ing] been denied opportunities», the idea of the relevance of a «gender» and gender issues is completely only thrown in by the reader, that of the «1950s» confirms misunderstanding because the point was not localized in space and time:

I very literally stated that "you can set the bar to" «just a good grandmother». The reference to «exceptional researchers and engineers» related to the grandmother was just that "you do not need a Professor, but something that has the basic requirements - good sense, intelligence - to become one in case, suffices.

It is not the bar "«of personhood or dignity»" as the poster originally proposed: it is the bar to be a proper social actor. And it is a requirement that has always been there, and which today is in the highlight, given that some are advancing the idea that a pseudo-parrot may suffice.

"Good sense" should better return as a definite Value.

[ben_w]

> if you do not implement it or its origin, it will not be there.

Who created ours?

And if it's god (which god?), who created theirs?

[mdp2021]

We are talking about engineering things.

If you want to implement it directly, good;

if you want to implement what will spawn it, good;

if you want to implement an "[evolutionary] genetic algorithm" as said spawner - so that the population of the entities in need to find solutions in the solution space will progressively develop a model of said world and a logic that works in it -, good.

If you built a mannequin and wanted to call it a woman... Bad.

[ben_w]

Do genetic algorithms create human intelligence directly, or do they create the capacity for a human brain to develop it?

I genuinely don't know if anyone knows the answer to that.

But I do know the perceptron is a toy model of an organic neuron, and that deep learning is a toy model of larger structures such as a cortical column.

And I do know some AI (not sure about GPT in particular) are trained via genetic algorithms.

You appear to be awfully confident we haven't implemented intelligence, even by the standard stated in your reply.

[wrycoder]

"Learn to code" isn't such valuable advice for the Average Joe anymore, is it?