[Analog24]

> > > Should we develop nonhuman minds

> The embarrassing part. Preaching a religion under professional pretenses.

There are quite a few companies with the explicitly stated goal of developing AGI. You can debate whether or not it's possible as that is an open question but it certainly seems relevant to ask "should we even try?", especially in light of recent developments.

[avgcorrection]

There could be quite-a-few companies whose mission statement involved summoning the Anti-Christ and it would still just be religion.

[Analog24]

That analogy is nonsense. We're actually making measurable gains in AI and the pace of progress is only increasing. Belief in this isn't based on faith, it is based on empirical evidence.

[avgcorrection]

Elevator- and construction-technology has been improving for centuries. We will surely make a Tower of Babel that reaches the top of the Sky—it’s only a question of when.

[etiam]

Are you suggesting that artificial minds are unattainable in principle, or that the much-hyped language models are elevators for a task that requires rockets?

[tome]

I suspect that avgcorrection is suggesting that we don't have enough evidence to know whether either is the case.

[avgcorrection]

More the latter.

I’m agnostic on the whether artificial minds can be made in principle and very much against people calling their chatbots for “minds”.

[Analog24]

Another hyperbolic analogy. What a great argument, I'm convinced.

[avgcorrection]

Not as hyperbolic as the GAI true believers.

[flangola7]

The Anti-Christ is not real. OPT social engineering humans and GPT4 reverse engineering an assembly binary are.