[user_7832]

> The big lesson from the AI development in the last 10 years from me has been "I guess humans really aren't so special after all"

Instead I would take the opposite take.

How wonderful is it, that with naturally evolved processes and neural structures, have we been able to create what we have. Van Gogh’s paintings came out of the human brain. The Queens of the Skies - hundreds of tons of metal and composites - flying across continents in the form of a Boeing 747 or an A380 - was designed by the human brain. We went to space, have studied nature (and have conservation programs for organisms we have found to need help), took pictures the pillars of creation that are so incredibly far… all with such a “puny” structure a few cm in diameter? I think that’s freaking amazing.

[OccamsMirror]

"I guess humans really aren't so special after all"

This is a crazy take to me. As compared to what? The machines that we built?

Until we discover comparably intelligent life in the universe I think it's fair to say that we are indeed very special.

[globnomulous]

https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/dm

[johnisgood]

I am pleasantly surprised that David Hume's writings have been mentioned. I love his works.

[globnomulous]

I have to confess this is the only essay of his I know, though it's an all-time favorite. What other Hume pieces would you recommend?

[johnisgood]

What initially drew me to David Hume was a quote from his discussions of miracles in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (name of chapter is "Of Miracles").

That said, I began with "A Treatise of Human Nature" around the age of 17, translated to my native language (his works are not an easy read in English, IMO), due to my interest in both philosophy and psychology.

If you haven't read them yet, I would certainly recommend them. I would recommend the latter I mentioned even if you are not interested in psychology (but may be interested in epistemology, philosophy of mind, and/or ethics), as he gets into detail about his "impressions" vs "ideas".

Additionally, he is famously known for his "problem of induction" which you may already know.

[pineaux]

Its like saying:

Ah, but these wizards created a magical entity that can also do magic! Wizards must not be so special after all...

[strogonoff]

You know how many old sci-fi settings pictured aliens as bipedal furry animals or lizards? Even to go from that to realistically-intelligent swarms of insects is already difficult.

(Of course, there’s plenty of sci-fi where conscious entities manifest themselves as abstract balls of pure energy or the like; except for some reason those balls still think in the same way we do, get assigned the same motivations, sometimes even speak our language, etc., which makes it, in a way, even less realistic than the walking and talking human-cat hybrid you’d see in Elder Scrolls.)

Whenever we ponder questions of intelligence and consciousness, the same pitfall awaits.

Since we don’t have an objective definition of consciousness or intelligence (and in all likelihood we can’t have one, because any formal attempt at such wouldn’t get very far due to being attempted by the same thing that’s being defined), the only one that makes sense is, in crude language, “something like what we are”. There’s a vague feeling that it has to do with free will, self-awareness, etc.; however, all of it is also influenced by the nature of us being all parts of some big figurative anthill—assuming your sense of self only arises as you model yourself against the other (starting with your parents/caretakers and on), a standalone human cannot be self-aware in the way we are if it evolved in an emptiness without others—i.e., it would not possess human intelligence; supported by our natural-scientific observations rejecting the possibility of a being of this shape and form ever evolving in the first place.

In other words, the more different some kind of intelligence is from ours, the less it would look like intelligence to us—which makes the search for alien intelligence in space somewhat tragically futile (if it exists, we wouldn’t recognize it unless it just happens to be like us), but opens up exciting opportunities for finding alien but not-too-alien intelligence right on this planet (almost Douglas Adams style, minus dolphins speaking English).

There’s an extra trick when it comes to LLMs. In case of alien life, the possibility of a radically different kind of consciousness producing output that closely mimics our own is almost impossible (if our prior assumption is correct, then for all intents and purposes truly alien, non-meatbag-scale kind of intelligence might not be able to recognize ours in the first place, just like we wouldn’t recognize alien intelligence). However, the LLMs are designed to mimic the most social aspect of our behavior, our communication aimed at fellow humans; so when an LLM produces sufficiently human-like output—even if it has a very different kind of consciousness[0] or no consciousness at all (more likely, though as we concluded above we can’t distinguish between the two cases anyway)—our minds are primed to see it as a manifestation of [which would be human-like] intelligence, even if there’s nothing that would suggest such judging by the way it’s created (which is radically different from the way we’ve been creating intelligent life so far, wink-wink), by the substrate it runs on, if not by the way it actually works (which per our conclusion above we might never be able to conclusively determine about our own minds, without resorting to unfalsifiable philosophical assumptions for at least some aspects of it).

So yes, I’d say humans are special, if nothing else then because by the only usable (if somewhat circular) definition of what we are there’s absolutely nothing like us around, and in all likelihood can never be. (That’s not to say that something not like us isn’t special in its own way—I mean, think of the dolphins!—but given we, due to not being it, would not be able to properly understand it, it just never hits the same.)

[0] Which if true would be completely asocial (given it neither exists in groups nor depends on others for survival) and therefore drastically different from ours.

[rightbyte]

In Star Trek the whole humanoids everywhere thing is an obvious practicality in producing episodes, though.

They spent the whole budget on the salt vampire and never recovered.

[strogonoff]

Well, most sci-fi still fits the bill. Vinge is a bit interesting in that he plays around with the idea with Tines where an “individual” (in human sense) is a pack of 5 of them[0] or with civilizations that “transcend” and then no one has any idea of what are about anymore, and how a bunch of civilizations evolved from humans which explains how they all just happen to operate on equivalent human meatbag scale.

[0] Genuinely not unlike how a congregation of gelled-together humans is an entity that can achieve much more than an individual human.

[maaaaattttt]

"Brain_s_". I find we (me included) generally overlook/underestimate the distributed nature of human intelligence, included in the AI field. That's why when I first heard of mixture of experts I was thrilled about the idea and the potential. (One could also see similarities in random forest). I believe a path to AGI(tm) would be to reproduce the evolution of human intelligence artificially. Start with small models training bigger and bigger models and let the bigger successfull models (insert RL, genetic algos, etc.) "reproduce" and teach newer models from scratch. Having different model architecture cohabit could maybe even lead to the kind of specializations we see in parts of the brain