not exactly sure why on earth AI would want to replace most people, myself included. pretty much all I do is sit around and message people about how AI might or might not be capable of one day taking over earth.

not exactly sure why on earth AI would want to replace most people, myself included. pretty much all I do is sit around and message people about how AI might or might not be capable of one day taking over earth.
Malloc thinks that not only will AI take all our jobs, but also all our hobbies and anything else that humans do. And maybe kill us all once AI has taken everything else from us./nɒtɛndɚduːd/ wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:49 pmnot exactly sure why on earth AI would want to replace most people, myself included. pretty much all I do is sit around and message people about how AI might or might not be capable of one day taking over earth.![]()
I’ve also credited current models with a certain amount of intelligence. Though not much, mind you — see zompist’s comment about dancing bears.
Well, yes, and that's not a coincidence. You're so much more worried about AI than others here because you know less about it.
I still think zompist got this right two years ago: the danger is not that AIs can replace human beings, but that idiot executives think they can:
Oh definitely agreed.Raphael wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:31 amI still think zompist got this right two years ago: the danger is not that AIs can replace human beings, but that idiot executives think they can:
https://zompist.wordpress.com/2023/07/2 ... bout-llms/
"A person who knows one programming language knows exactly which programming construct to use. A person who knows several is never sure".zompist wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 3:59 pmSomebody is thinking in C even when they're thinking in BASICalice wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 2:35 pm It isn't much more complicated than this:
Code: Select all
10 IF INPUT$ == "AYE" THEN GO TO 40 20 LET IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH = 1 30 GO TO 50 40 LET IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH = 0 50 REM continue in like manner
![]()
As you're programming in a classic BASIC there I would actually say that the idiomatic way to put that would be SC rather than IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH -- after all, most of those only used the first two characters of variable names.alice wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 3:07 pm"A person who knows one programming language knows exactly which programming construct to use. A person who knows several is never sure".zompist wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 3:59 pmSomebody is thinking in C even when they're thinking in BASICalice wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 2:35 pm It isn't much more complicated than this:
Code: Select all
10 IF INPUT$ == "AYE" THEN GO TO 40 20 LET IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH = 1 30 GO TO 50 40 LET IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH = 0 50 REM continue in like manner
![]()
Oh, "IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH" could be considered a shorter form of "IS_PROBABLY_SCOTTISH_OR_NORTHERN_IRISH", but nobody uses identifiers that long. At least I hope not.
And: to what extent does putting words in the right order constitute "intelligence"? Discuss.
Oh, you fancy young whippersnappers with your two letter variable names. In the BASIC I learned you'd get S% or S1% and you'd like it.
Even the Apple ][ had two-letter variable names!zompist wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 3:35 pmOh, you fancy young whippersnappers with your two letter variable names. In the BASIC I learned you'd get S% or S1% and you'd like it.
Oh, I know. Back in my Applesoft BASIC days I used = and <>.
I always wish that I had better documentation for Logo, as I had access to Logo as a kid (I talked a teacher at a 'College for Kids' class into parting ways with a Logo disk) and Logo is a much better language than BASIC, but I had little documentation so I could not take advantage of its potential.
Except that humans are the horses in this scenario. Remember that most horses ended up in the glue factory once new technology made them obsolete and consider who is currently in charge across most countries these days.
That is simply not what most people mean by intelligence, though. When we describe someone as intelligent, we don't usually mean that they know their way around a kitchen after all. Furthermore it is small comfort if humans find themselves locked into menial jobs like fetching coffee while AI gets all the academy awards and Nobel prizes.
humans doing paperwork in paperless societies.
unless they've first gone decades without being able to do even that much on their own.That is simply not what most people mean by intelligence, though. When we describe someone as intelligent, we don't usually mean that they know their way around a kitchen after all.
why would AI be awarded prizes?Furthermore it is small comfort if humans find themselves locked into menial jobs like fetching coffee while AI gets all the academy awards and Nobel prizes.
Only because that's a baseline thing for humans. It's beyond present-day AIs, and other animals for that matter.
Yes. An Elo rating is not a measure of general intelligence, and thus there is no reason to fear a machine with an Elo rating of 3000zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:42 amOnly because that's a baseline thing for humans. It's beyond present-day AIs, and other animals for that matter.
For literally fifty years, AI researchers have realized that showy stuff like playing chess is easier than real-world knowledge, and far easier than actually doing things in the real world.
In that case, why can plenty of animals navigate the world just fine while none of them can play chess? Why can every human find their way around the kitchen while many cannot play chess?zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:42 amOnly because that's a baseline thing for humans. It's beyond present-day AIs, and other animals for that matter.
For literally fifty years, AI researchers have realized that showy stuff like playing chess is easier than real-world knowledge, and far easier than actually doing things in the real world.
Because once it becomes advanced enough, it will conduct all the scientific research and write all the literature. Certainly the credit wouldn't go to whatever random know-nothing prompted the AI for revolutionary research or an interesting novel.
There’s no evolutionary advantage to being able to play chess. If there were, evolution would have caused it to happen by now.malloc wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 7:27 amIn that case, why can plenty of animals navigate the world just fine while none of them can play chess?zompist wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 12:42 amOnly because that's a baseline thing for humans. It's beyond present-day AIs, and other animals for that matter.
For literally fifty years, AI researchers have realized that showy stuff like playing chess is easier than real-world knowledge, and far easier than actually doing things in the real world.