[dalmo3]

I don't agree evolution optimises for a goal at all. IMO optimising for a goal means you first define a goal, then you work towards it.

Evolution has no goal, it's simply a process determined by chemical reactions. Any goals we attribute to it, e.g. "for our genes to survive and be passed on" are emergent phenomena, a rationalisation after the fact that that is indeed what's been observed.

It's plausible that AI "goals" emerge evolutionarily as well, but for that to happen we first need to create not AGI but Artificial Life, which is a huge leap from today, and I certainly don't understand how that's inevitable.

[circuit10]

Then by that definition AI training has no goal, it's simply a process defined by calculations. But whether you want it call it a goal or not, the fact remains that they look very, very much like goals. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

> It's plausible that AI "goals" emerge evolutionarily as well

AI training is vaguely similar to evolution, except more efficient and directed

[dalmo3]

> Then by that definition AI training has no goal, it's simply a process defined by calculations.

No, the very definition of training is that there is a goal which to train for. Those calculations were created by humans with goals. For LLMs, the goal is token prediction.

Evolution has no training.

[ChatGTP]

What is the training goal of ChatGPT ?

[dalmo3]

> ChatGPT is a sibling model to InstructGPT, which is trained to follow an instruction in a prompt and provide a detailed response.

https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt