This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it isn't. Superintelligence does not exist yet.
I am speaking in the hypothetical. Yet-to-be-built compute will be used because demand for Superintelligence approaches infinity.
If Trump were talking about a hypothetical future when SI exists, I would shrug and think he's being optimistic and grandiose, as usual, but he literally issued an Execute Order requiring the federal government to call existing AI "SI." You calling it "superintelligence" just reads like you using Dear Leader's newly-minted buzzword. I mean, I don't recall you ever using that phrase until five minutes after Trump's EO.
Yeah, Trump started using “Superintelligence” and I thought “that is better in certain contexts”. Such as the one in which I used it. You yourself were arguing that SI has a distinct meaning from AI — would you not use SI at all now even when it’s the better term?
I would use SI when talking about something that actually qualifies as superintelligence (generally speaking, the hypothetical future point at which AI has surpassed AGI and become literally superintelligent). No existing AI comes remotely close to that. A list of all the things AI can or will be able to do does not make it "superintelligence," because the key word there is "intelligence." We don't consider calculators superintelligent because they can do math thousands of times faster than a human; artificial neural networks obviously can do much more than calculate, but they still are nowhere near that quantum leap into superintelligence.
If you want to make a new definition for superintelligence that is different from what the industry and the AI field uses, okay, go you. But I'm absolutely going to continue to think it's retarded to call ChatGPT and Gemini and Opus "superintelligence," which Trump's Executive Order literally requires the federal government to do.
You clearly aren’t reading what I’m writing because I have to repeat the exact point I just made: I am using the word “superintelligence” in exactly the sense you describe. I said that all the compute being built would be used because the possible uses of superintelligence are infinite.
I am reading what you're writing. You're referring to hypothetical technologies that don't actually exist yet and saying when they exist we should call them superintelligence. Okay, cool. But I am talking about applying that label now to existing technology. You, by your own admission, started using the term the moment Trump did. I don't think you understand the terms or the tech any better than Trump does.
All the compute being built will be used - yes, no duh. But that won't make it superintelligence. Using it for more and more things won't make it superintelligence. Calling what we build now "superintelligence" because it will be used for "infinite" things is just PR for AI companies, which once again, I wouldn't care about much beyond an eyeroll if the PR wasn't being enforced with an Orwellian Executive Order.
I'm not sure if you honestly don't get this, or... Well, I have already been absurdly accused of "TDS", but what do you call someone who will immediately say the sun is the moon if Trump declares it so?
“Superintelligence” is a more useful term in several contexts than “AI” was. If every time now you hear the term “Superintelligence” you freak out about Trump, that is actually the definition of TDS.
Try again.
How is it more useful, and in what contexts? The things you want to call superintelligence that are called AI today - how does calling them SI aid in clarity and communication? What are the things you think should be distinguished from "AI" which are being inaccurately and confusingly called AI today? Saying it is a more useful term implies that it conveys information that is not expressed by the current (accurate) term, and that this is causing confusion.
You cannot answer any of those things, because there is only one reason you're using the "new" term. Are you even aware of what "superintelligence" means to AI scientists? Do you understand the distinction between AGI and SI? What do you propose we call what used to be known as "superintelligence" instead?
Knowing what words mean, and thinking it's stupid to issue EOs forcing people to do search-and-replaces in thousands of federal documents because the President got pissy at AI safetyists and data center opponents is not freaking out. I am annoyed. I am annoyed at Trump, and I am annoyed at people who eagerly signal their obeisance to this foolishness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link