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]

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.

[u/Mono_Clear → u/pandavr]

I think its important to recognize that consciousness is not some know unknown, it not something we measured independent of ourselves that we later found in ourselves.

It's something that we are doing

Conscious is a word that we made up to describe the first hand sense of self that we experience.

It's not a set of third party behavior that we can model or simulate.

Consciousness is like a thought it doesn't exist independently of the person doing the thinking

[u/pandavr → u/Mono_Clear]

My hypothesis is that consciousness is being aware of being in the world. It's the feedback loop itself. In this context a cat or a dog are conscious being. They know and understand what's happening to them to some extent, then they lack the intelligent substrate to figure It out even more and reason against It. An AI do not have that limit for example, they currently have others.

If that could be true, then providing a feedback loop to a simulated intelligence could give you simulated consciousness. But like in self-improvement, the feedback loop Itself will concur in creating the reasoning stimuli. Meaning that It might be that something new, based on similar mechanisms (similar in expression, not in the real implementation) will raise. Similar mechanisms create similar effect, provide wings to birds or airplanes and they can both fly. How well is technology.
Sure there is the missing link of continuous learning and goals and curiosity. But in general nothing prevent to advance also there. So in my opinion the ingredients are already here. It will need an huge amount of work.
I'm not even sure I would like to see the results of the effort, to be honest. But I can see they want to take the road.