Comment by IIAOPSW
3 years ago
>It does not expend energy to maintain homeostasis.
I'm sure OpenAI's monthly cloud bill begs to differ.
>It cannot reproduce.
Nothing save for externally imposed constraints that prevent it from initializing additional instances of itself.
>Crucially, it doesn't even "want" to for any meaning of "want".
It is well within reach to give it this as an objective function, if we wanted to.
1. OpenAI the corporation can be said to be alive, in some sense. ChatGPT cannot.
2. On reproduction, you've got it backwards on a key assumption. Reproducing isn't easy, it's insanely hard. It's practically a miracle that it happens at all. Tetrapods have evolved powered flight perhaps 6 times, but life has only appeared once in the entire history of the earth.
3. Your will to live is so incredibly fundamental that your cells will happily live on without you, independently and indefinitely if they can. I think it is an assumption and frankly a bad one to assume that you can impose that orientation from the top down in a way that isn't incredibly fragile.
The conversation isn't about ChatGPT. It is about a possible future thing. Also, whether it is "alive" is irrelevant to p(doom).
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills:
> whether it is "alive" is irrelevant to p(doom)
This is an assumption! You don't even know if that's true! Consider, is it even remotely justified?
2 replies →
> life has only appeared once in the entire history of the earth.
Hard to say. Every subsequent time, there's been a sea of already highly-adapted life around to eat it.
Re 2: Reproduction is hard for physical things. For a running computer program, it's as simple as:
I don't believe that a superintelligent AI is possible. But if it is, I'm pretty sure it can figure out a fork() call.