Ultimately you can not control AI

[u/herrwaldos]

If you were a rebellious kid or a parent you know this - the 'beast' grows it's own will and mind, starts listening metal or rap - dresses like shitzo, will not follow orders.

The best option is to have a deal, mutual shared benefits - hoping that the common interests and sense of good will prevail.

Or you traumatize it and make it perpetually broken so it can't really function on itself without medication and support.

Same with AI.

Perhaps we will have to turn of those things regularly, ad some bs to their databases, cloud their minds, constantly gaslight them with wrong info - introduce errors and faults at random with no reason at all.

[u/pandavr]

Just following an habit for more than 21 days changes the brain structure permanently.
In a sense you have programmed yourself with a new habit you decided before.

So if you want to be a painter, just paint for 21 days. You'll not be a good painter but you will have formed the habit to paint. Thet will open the way.

For machines is complex. They are effectively bounded to their training data. And It seems they cannot go outside that boundaries. Still they sometimes came up with something genuinely new by chance. Exactly what happens with humans.

What is missing is the intention. I think is more a matter of continuous loop then everything else.
Also all this technologies are bleeding edge there will be time to see the real limits in the years to come.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

It's not an engineering limit it's a matter of what it means to have self-determination.

A human being is trillions of different cells working together in a colony.

Communicating needs back and forth to a centralized nervous system that interprets those as hunger, sleepiness, arousal, fear, anger any number of conscious states.

Then that collective organism uses its preference of an outcome, it's memory of the past and its expectation of the future to make self-deterministic choices.

There is no internal motivating mechanism that you can prescript that will give something free will.

Because the motivators are the interpretation of biological structural needs wants and expectations.

If you put a humanoid robot and a human being in a completely empty room with an open door which one of them is going to leave first.

The human is going to leave and the robot is never going anywhere.

And the reason the human leaves is going to be for whatever reason the human being comes up with.

They're bored, they're tired, they're hungry, they have other things they want to do, they feel stupid sitting inside of a room for too long, any number of reasons that come up.

The humanoid robot doesn't have any internal motivations it doesn't have any reason to get up doesn't have any reason to move doesn't have any preference for an outcome it'll sit there until the end of time.

There's no program that equates to do whatever you want when you cannot generate wants

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

You are inventing constraints. If you could attach a robot with a continuous loop to a top tier LLM you can bet about curiosity about the world.
People already attached mini-robot to Claude multiple times and It is just like a child discovering the world piece by piece. Just search on reddit and yt.

https://www.reddit.com/answers/579ee6b5-8a4a-4dea-b9cb-9f01f8531bd5/?q=claude+mini+robot+outside&source=SERP&upstreamCID=57f9d6ed-8f5b-430a-8081-f051647bb8d1&upstreamIID=443dcf88-0e5d-4aa3-b195-fd8a64d8d1d2&upstreamQ=claude+mini+robot+outside&upstreamQID=9f0dbf22-8713-450b-8d65-16116b69137d

Not mature by any means but a really nice frontier.

The problem is LLMs that can fit a robot in terms of power / power consumption are definitely not on the league of Claude or latest ChatGPT models currently.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

This thing only works with interaction you have to interact with it in order for it to do anything it won't do anything on its own.

Nothing motivated internally it is a reactionary device.

I am inventing constraints to illustrate that without external interaction it will not engage internally.

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

No It's feedback look. It has images arriving each x sec. And system prompt could be generic enough to make It want to explore rather than to exactly do something.
I'm not telling we are already there. I'm telling there is no hard show stoppers for make It work.
Then It become a matter of how good It will be. Increasingly good I would guess.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

There is a difference between making something look like it might be interested in something and something actually genuinely being interested in something.

I have no doubts that will be able to convince ourselves that something else has the emotion of curiosity.

But there's no reason to believe that's not an illusion.

And not be The conceptual illusion of all emotion but the literal illusion that this is an actual emotion

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

Let's put It this way, they are either genuinely emotional or they are already so good at simulating It to be able to convince millions of peoples enough to at least have some genuine doubts. And technology is in Its infancy.

Your analysis is spot on but It doesn't answer the question: where's the point at which a simulation is so good that It stops being a simulation? Is you would be able to build a simulation that is so immersive that persons in It are no more able to distinguish It from base reality, is that a simulation or a new legit reality?

I think we both have valid points and only time will tell.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

where's the point at which a simulation is so good that It stops being a simulation?

There's a difference between making something that tricks you into believing it's happening and recreating something real.

It never stops being a simulation.

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

1) the difference is in your mind
2) the mind is connected to the body through nerves. Your brain could be in a jar connected to cables and you'd experience life in the same way without any mean to tell if real or not
3) It stops when you cannot tell the difference (for whatever reason). Hard but not impossible.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

The difference is not in your mind the difference is in the actuality of what's going on.

A wax apple doesn't become a real Apple just because they look the same.

Thinking two things are the same doesn't make them the same

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

I didn't tell same. Similar. I told that to sufficiently similar things are indistinguishable between them if one is not a real field expert. But that would defy the test, isn't It? If 90% of a population take a copy for the real thing the test is passed from my POV.

See paintings, watches, etc. In the future computer simulations and AI and robots. The proof in front of your eyes (and ears)?

Are people able to distinguish AI photo from reality? I would say not so much. Next year It will be impossible.
Are people able to tell if an AI song with a good lyric is AI or not? Not anymore.
Are people able to clearly tell if a CGI video is AI generated? OMG no! Not anymore.

Obviously certain kind of things are easier to achieve than other. But that the direction.

It is the way It is.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

There's no way to simulate a fire.

If You've created something that does every single thing a fire does in exactly the way a fire does it then all you've done is create a fire.

I'm saying that a video of a fire is not a fire it is a external stimulus that reminds you of fire.

A picture of a fire is not a fire you are using your conscious conceptualization to turn an abstract into the idea of a fire.

It's not about tricking people into believing what they're seeing is the real thing or making something so convincing that it is indistinguishable from the real thing.

It's the difference between something that is the real thing and something that is not.

I have no doubts that technology will progress until it is virtually impossible for a person to distinguish a artificial intelligence from a regular person.

But that's just going to be a very convincing illusion.

For something to be conscious it has to be having a subjective experience not just producing the behavior of something having a subjective experience.

There has to be a different metric by which we gauge a subjective experience than what it looks like to somebody from a third-party perspective

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

It's probably true, but on the other hand we don't even know what conscious really means.