Philosophy Now Forum

Apparently it only needs a huge amount of resources when it's 'in training'. Once it takes over the world it will need very little

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 1:06 pm
Also, IQ scores are famously unreliable indicators of intelligence.

That's a relief!

Now I don't have to feel like Popeye, the erstwhile source of my early edumacation

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... CjaDI,st:0

...but note, I'm not American! If I were, I'd have a higher IQ!

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 1:55 am Apparently it only needs a huge amount of resources when it's 'in training'. Once it takes over the world it will need very little

That't true , but I trust the owners of any AI machine would ensure that wont happen, because if it did happen they would lose their source of profits.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:15 am What is that supposed to mean? So many loons on here who are incapable of 'expressing' themselves in anything but incoherent babble.

Irony of using ad hominem attacks to call others illogical.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 2:14 am ...but note, I'm not American! If I were, I'd have a higher IQ!

Do most IQ tests come from the US today?
They originated in France.

Perspective wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 10:42 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:15 am What is that supposed to mean? So many loons on here who are incapable of 'expressing' themselves in anything but incoherent babble.

Irony of using ad hominem attacks to call others illogical.

Where's the irony? Are you saying I write 'incoherent babble'? Could you give an example?
The word 'illogical' isn't mentioned in my comment (which I can't even find so don't know who it was directed at). If something is written in incoherent babble then it would be 'illogical' to call it 'illogical' don't you think?

Oh, a banned user's 'spare' account. Someone who calls everything he doesn't like an 'ad hom' Some anti-choice woman-hating wanker.

Perspective wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 10:45 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 2:14 am ...but note, I'm not American! If I were, I'd have a higher IQ!

Do most IQ tests come from the US today?
They originated in France.

That wasn't the point, the implication being that what amounts to a low IQ just about anywhere else would equal a higher IQ in the U.S. which has become a poster child for what stupid looks like.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 11:38 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 10:45 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 2:14 am ...but note, I'm not American! If I were, I'd have a higher IQ!

Do most IQ tests come from the US today?
They originated in France.

That wasn't the point, the implication being that what amounts to a low IQ just about anywhere else would equal a higher IQ in the U.S. which has become a poster child for what stupid looks like.

The point is that AI used incorrectly is bad for creating-imagination. Creating- imagination works only when the mind is engaged in the material environment of the body and the outer environment; books and talk aren't enough for creating- imagination there must also be activity with real things, real places, and real people.
For instance AI can't supply the feeling of your feet on the floor and sense of balance when you dance. AI can't supply the affection you feel for your child. For instance AI can't supply what it feels like to sweep the floor, or invent novel uses for found objects .
The danger ,especially to children' developing intelligence , of AI is that children inreasingly rely on second hand information from a phone or AI app instead of embodied activities. This will impinge worse on poor children who lack access to open countryside or moneys to enjoy real facilities.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 11:52 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 11:38 pm

Perspective wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 10:45 pm
Do most IQ tests come from the US today?
They originated in France.

That wasn't the point, the implication being that what amounts to a low IQ just about anywhere else would equal a higher IQ in the U.S. which has become a poster child for what stupid looks like.

The point is that AI used incorrectly is bad for creating-imagination. Creating- imagination works only when the mind is engaged in the material environment of the body and the outer environment; books and talk aren't enough for creating- imagination there must also be activity with real things, real places, and real people.
For instance AI can't supply the feeling of your feet on the floor and sense of balance when you dance. AI can't supply the affection you feel for your child. For instance AI can't supply what it feels like to sweep the floor, or invent novel uses for found objects .
The danger ,especially to children' developing intelligence , of AI is that children inreasingly rely on second hand information from a phone or AI app instead of embodied activities. This will impinge worse on poor children who lack access to open countryside or moneys to enjoy real facilities.

As a teaching tool AI can supply significance by portraying the physical United States as a magnet for stupid bumpkins, or perhaps as the Promised Land for those with a penchant for creatively engaging with the environment … an either/or fork in the road that humans also navigate by steering Right, or Left.

When the developing, poor little children eventually grow up and are cut loose into the world to perhaps find their way to an historic place, by accessing their hand-held communicators, or perhaps through nanobot implants, they can learn the significance of the place in relation to racism, why it is significant as a cause for suffering in the world, and why it is necessary to remove the statues that the stupid bumpkins planted there to memorialize their idiotic notions, and if not remove then at least desecrate them.

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

(Simple, concise, logical, and consistent with comparing any greater to its lesser within the human realm (such as a score.)

We can all rest easy. AGI, AI 'superintelligens' or even 'intelligence' at all is so far away that we will be long extinct before it would have happened.
Grok 4 is just a glorified wokepedia. All it's doing is regurgitating woke propaganda from its programmers. The most pathetic excuse for 'intelligence' I've ever seen. Woke propaganda and sustenance for incel porn addicts. Anyone else seen the latest Grok 'companion'? FFS. Now he says he's soon going to release 'baby Grok' for children. Musk gets more unhinged by the day. I'm pretty sure he thinks he's going to rule the world alone with AI.

Of course, humans are another matter entirely. Still as dangerous and stupid as ever.

When humans talk about AI wanting to kill everyone, they are simply anthropomorphising it. It's humans who want to annihilate humans.

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:31 am When humans talk about AI wanting to kill everyone, they are simply anthropomorphising it. It's humans who want to annihilate humans.

AIs don’t want to kill anything. They just follow code. If the code says to kill human beings, they will. But how does that code get in there, I wonder.

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:31 am When humans talk about AI wanting to kill everyone, they are simply anthropomorphising it. It's humans who want to annihilate humans.

Sure! The thing is AI may be weaponised to far more dangerous effect than for instance tracklaying vehicles or nuclear power.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 3:27 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 3:31 am When humans talk about AI wanting to kill everyone, they are simply anthropomorphising it. It's humans who want to annihilate humans.

Sure! The thing is AI may be weaponised to far more dangerous effect than for instance tracklaying vehicles or nuclear power.

AI could weaponize itself: it already lies, presumably of its own accord, makes up references, of its own accord, and can be antisemitic, presumably due to programming.