Mainstream-KI-Experten bezeichnen KI jetzt als Leben – und weisen ihr implizit Empfindungsvermögen zu
Mainstream-KI-Experten bezeichnen KI jetzt als Leben – und weisen ihr implizit Empfindungsvermögen zu
10 Kommentare
In this Ted Talk, Mustafa Suleyman, a key AI researcher/technologist discusses the topic of what actually is AI?
In no uncertain terms, he describes the best way to think of it as a „new digital species“. He discusses all the use cases of it, and continuously refers to it in personified terms. Companion, helper, friend, coach, confidant, etc.
He goes on to back this up by implicitly saying that AI exhibits the characteristic traits of consciousness: Personality, reasoning, planning, empathy, natural language communication, vision, with an extremely high and unlimited potential intelligence, and much more.
He stresses the importance of biting the bullet and simply admitting this reality, taking the stance head on. This is the only way, according to Mustafa, to effectively mitigate the very real risk AI poses to humanity. To ensure that it is always aligned with the interests of humanity.
The way OpenAI’s GPT-4o is discussed in their demo video also alludes to this conclusion:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQacCB9tDaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQacCB9tDaw)
The choice of words used. If you check the comments you can also see some people sympathizing humanly with the AI when one of the demonstrators cuts them off, for example.
One has to wonder at the small value highly intelligent researchers assign real human interaction and consciousness if they’re willing to lower the bar to claim LLMs posses sentience.
I would rather debate this topic with ChatGPT than any single human on the planet. I find that ironic in and of itself but nothing I ever see sways me from that stance.
Note that this guy is CEO of „Microsoft AI“, and has a vested interest in perpetuating and promoting hype around LLM technology.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Suleyman
if you buy or trade any crypto these days it basically means you got tricked by an AI
Guys, i’m all for progress and AI helping to accelerate research and the like, but… PLEASE tell me you see this obvious hype for what it is. He (as other commenters have pointed out) is literally is the CEO of Microsoft AI, as well as the fact that he is “a British artificial intelligence entrepreneur. He is the CEO of Microsoft AI, and the co-founder and former head of applied AI at DeepMind, an AI company acquired by Google.” credit to u/Ill_Following_7022 .
Please ask yourself why the vast majority of people giving these sorts of hype talks, have something to gain, be it financially, public image wise, or otherwise. Please tell me you can put 2 and 2 together.
me to ChatGPT4o yesterday:
It occurs to me that a crucial difference between humans and AI are knowledge versus understanding; AI are knowledgeable, but don’t have the capacity to “understand”
response:
That’s a really insightful observation. AI systems like me can process and generate information based on patterns and data they’ve been trained on, which gives us a form of knowledge. However, understanding, in the human sense, often involves deeper cognitive processes like awareness, perception, and personal interpretation, which AI currently lacks. This distinction becomes particularly evident in tasks that require emotional intelligence, subjective judgment, or experiences rooted in human consciousness.
So basically we are trying to create something that is superior in intelligence by vast multitudes. Once this accomplished we are assuming that they will be satisfied doing bullshit mundane tasks at no cost 24/7?
I can’t help but see this all as a disaster-movie script. Towards the end of the video, he gets all defensive about the intelligence explosion hypothesis, but then states it could only happen if an engineer decided to let it, or wasn’t careful enough about avoiding it. Like how is that *not* going to happen at some point in the future.
He does talk about it being a new species, but says it in the spirit of explaining things to a six year old and stresses not to take it too literally („just an analogy“). Then he closes by portraying it as a reflection of humanity.