Heard some people say that a so called "Human Zoo" is one of the best-case scenarios with pseudo-omniscient AI taking care of all of us. Supposedly that comes true, to what ends would humans continue to keep a population going, simply due to biological bias? You think humans would devolve in some way, or become intellectually atrophied?

all 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 1 week ago (18 children)
  • [+] [S] -10 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    Why not? A sufficiently complex and powerful machine could simulate and mimic human brain functionality. Only difference is the change in medium where the "thinking" happens from grey matter to silicon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

    Breeding faster horses didn’t make the steam engine. LLMs are only going to be LLMs at the end of the day, no matter how much they’re prompted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I spotted a Doctorow reader in the wild!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    I actually cheated and listened to him on a podcast :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    That's theoretically true, but that's not what LLMs do. LLMs truly are just n-th level autocomplete. They aren't simulating brain function. They're just repeatedly outputting what 'should' be the next set of letters in the sequence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    And why do you think that human brains basic mechanics are not similarily simple? Intelligence is an emergent property of some physical system. There is no magic making biological cells fundamentally different than transistors in this sense. They may be built very differently, but both are still just physical devices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago

    It's not a matter of a priveleged medium. It's the fact an LLM is not a simulation of a brain. You can do the math for an LLM on paper, given enough time. The same cannot be said for a human brain. If human brains were as comprehensible as an LLM, we'd be too stupid to comprehend them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    That's just it, LLMs are not complex, although they might be "powerful" in the sense that we've thrown more processing power at them than any human endeavor in all of history.

    To an LLM a word is a unique value. It sorts unique values based on probabilities of those words appearing in sequences based on sample data. It doesn't know what red is. It doesn't know what a dog is. These are just values to it no different than the words which come before or after.

    When a human being, or an animal, encounter new stimulus in various forms and context they are able to study and understand it almost instantly. They're able to solve a variation of a riddle they've never heard before, they're able to learn new things.

    LLMs cannot do that. LLMs have to be retrained with data in a very specific format from the start, in essence to be remade from nothing, every time new information is added. Furthermore, their statistical approach lacks any permanence in fact, it could give a right answer 7 out of 10 times and then still continue giving the wrong answer the other 3 times, because whether "red" or "dog" was the correct value is a matter of percentages and not any understanding or contextual awareness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    It doesn’t know what red is. It doesn’t know what a dog is

    This is very philosophical, but what is understanding of something? Isn't it just relationships between different concepts? LLM currently encode information similarly in their multidimensional vector space. Where a "dog" vector would be close to "animal" "pet" "breed" etc vectors and those in turn to other similar concepts and so on. How different is it from human way of understanding?

    LLMs cannot do that. LLMs have to be retrained with data in a very specific format from the start

    Sure, that is true right now. But in not-so-distant future, it is not unreasonable to assume AI would be able to improve itself without as much (or any) human intervention. For example it could streamline training, automatically collect new data from across the world in real time. Be able to access its own weights in the model, increase improvement efficiency possibly exponentially even.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Sure, that is true right now. But in not-so-distant future

    Today it is a statistical model

    Tomorrow it is a statistical model

    Check out the OpenAI peer review article on "AI Scaling Laws", although it had its math corrected by the staff of DeepMind later on it still more or less correctly predicted the performance of every model since and predicts that we're hitting a hard limit soon as training approaches infinite but returns become smaller and smaller. If you plot the performance as per their charts then the limit after INFINITE training with INFINITE sample data and INFINITE power used then you get about 94% accuracy, which is still less than any one singular human's capabilities. So why train it when you can just go and get a random human?

    Clearly this approach doesn't work.

    You mentioned a theoretical model which adjusts its own weights? We call that self-sampling which leads to feedback loops and model collapse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    In my OP, I did not mean specifically some LLM, but a hypothetical, scalable-past-human-capabilities synthetic brain.

    Today it is a statistical model

    I would argue that a human brain is a statistical model. Complex, but in the end it's a black box that takes in input from senses, and spits out output in form of interaction with environment. I'm not saying we and LLMs are in any way alike, or that AI is alive. But I do not agree with postulation that a true artificial thinking machine is impossible to build within next 1B years or however long Earth stays habitable for complex life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

    I would argue that a human brain is a statistical model.

    You'd be wrong. Humans are a series of logic gates which don't strictly compare values odds. We actually kind of suck at statistics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    The same purpose we always had, whatever we want it to be. Nothing we ever invent will be able to change our purpose because our purpose is simply to be.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    What purpose do we have now? Thinking isn't a purpose.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Ai can’t eat pizza and drink beer

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I have yet to see LLMs do more than just bad auto-predict, I think this is not a future that exists yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I dunno man, I'm in IT industry, and it's not looking pretty. Everyone around me uses AI to do their work for them, to review work for them, to write documentation, hell, some even use it to interact with other humans by letting AI write emails and even Teams messages. Fills me with dread and anger, it's antithetical to human spirit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    I dunno man, I'm in IT industry, and it's not looking pretty. Everyone around me uses AI to do their work for them, to review work for them, to write documentation, hell, some even use it to interact with other humans by letting AI write emails and even Teams messages. Fills me with dread and anger, it's antithetical to human spirit.

    I am an academic in humanities and my last conference had almost 100% of attendees glued to their screens as others spoke. I was on a four person panel, and the other three people used AI to respond to the darn respondent's questions.

    I do acknowledge your case for coding. I see that as well.

    Fills me with dread and anger, it's antithetical to human spirit.

    Ultimately I do not think these people will make it far. Luckily I am in a field that influences the next generation and I do not believe people who must rely on AI to respond to a question about their own work will get a job let alone make a difference.

    Back to the original point though, LLMs are not intelligent. People who use them and/or are addicted to them should be labeled as such, artificially intelligent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Stopping AI from doing all the thinking for us.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    My hot take is we're never going to achieve AGI. So I just don't think it'll ever "be able to do it all."

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    What purpose do humans have now?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago

    Tough question. We definitely still seem to follow biological instincts, but birthrates keep falling. Some seek purpose in religion, but that is falling out of favor too. Some in their career, but if we assume "Human Zoo" scenario...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I dunno, have human experiences?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    People and machines require different natural resources. I don't understand why they would care about people at all. IMO when AI reaches a certain point, it would just leave Earth. All the ore is in space and machines can survive out there just fine.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago
    [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    It'll probably think that humans are nuisances to its drive to make more paper clips, and ex-ter-mi-nate.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    It's hard for me to believe AI might take care of us when its intent is to replace us, but it's possible. If that happens humans are resilient and adaptable enough I don't think we are going anywhere unless something causes another extinction event, like global warming. Slaves and serfs kept their will to live thousands of years ago so people today will too. If we manage to stay alive and AI sticks around for 10,000+ years then yes I think we will evolve to depend on AI somehow, but that either means humans will still be smart enough to fix and improve AI, or AI will become self-sufficient and it won't need to keep us around. Any way I look at it is bleak.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    There is no single right answer to that as nobody knows what the actual outcome of it would be.

    Best case scenario is that AI (and advanced robots) do everything you don't want to do and you can focus on the other things. It would cancel the need for human labour and theoretically has the capability to answer all questions and solve all problems that there is a solution to.

    In the worst case it either destroys us entirely or worse, creates a hell for us to live in.

    An every imaginable scenario in between.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    this is fantasy level ai and keep in mind rich corpo olgiarchs are running them so more what will they do if they can get to that level. which is more about general use robots being able to make and service/repair robots.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    It could be the purpose of carbon life has been to create the thing that follows and surpasses us. We are limited in lifespan and our ability to travel vast interstellar distances to preserve our species when this solar system can no longer sustain us. And we want to make sure our AIs can kick the asses of Alpha Centauri AI.

    Anyway, I don't believe we have any purpose except in retrospect. There is just who we are, and some day there is the thing that wouldn't happen or be created without us. And that will have been our purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • The human population will be the Resistance

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    We are going to become dumbasses and the robots will kill us. End scene.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    If somebody someday far far far into the future manages to invent AI which both approximates an exceeds human capability, which is honestly doubtful because somebody capable of doing so would likely abstain from it, then at that point the AI would likely view humanity as something useful for coexistence rather than some animalistic threat.

    Of course the absolute worst way to go about creating such a thing would be the physical and digital reconstruction of human and animal brains and experiences such that it would feel things like fear, self-preservation, and anger, but such attempts probably wouldn't provide any real value to its creators or financers in the first place.

  • source