Echo Dot

Hey look it’s a 💥

I’m not quite sure I understand what your point is.

Almost all modern game engines will potentially have AI code in. Most of them are either be managed by a company like blizzard or unity. The rest are open source projects like Godot.

At this point he has whined about it so much that everyone’s going to know the game uses AI, even if they don’t disclose it. He would have genuinely being better off shutting up about it.

I mean to be honest every engine is going to be like that now at least partly.

I do kind of hope valve update their AI policy at some point to actually clarify what the label means. Both open source and closed source engines are vulnerable to AI code so unless you also build the engine your game might include AI code without your knowledge. So who’s responsibility is it at that point to check the little box in the store to say this game includes code made by AI?

No does anybody else, but apparently they have access to them well we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

I don’t understand people who just let the AI loose on their system and don’t have any safeguards in place. At the very minimum it shouldn’t have admin access and should be limited to just the project folders. Also back up the project folders to another location the AI doesn’t have access to.

Really basic digital hygiene is all that’s needed, and yet there are constantly stories about idiots having their entire hard drives wiped.

It was just a test. I didn’t know it had internet access, I just connected it up to the internet how was I supposed to know?

Essentially OpenAI’s defense every time one of their AI does something that was instructed to do, but turned out to be illegal.

Especially because it’s the same damn people every time that caused the security vulnerabilities in the first place. If Karen could just stop clicking on obviously spam emails we’d be fine.

And then only the criminals would have them. You know because criminals tend to break the law so making a tool that they used to break the law illegal wouldn’t really impaire them.

This is what’s been annoying me since the beginning. Anytime someone comes up with an example of where AI can be useful it’s always coding. It’s like they think that literally everyone programs things all the time and does nothing else.

I like it when they put in perks things that are legally mandated. Oh wow this job comes with a pension, what a progressive company.

Technically Scotland colonized England.

computers will NEVER be intelligent. Without lines of code that humans made and tweak, computers wont do anything.

You’re basically saying a computer cannot be intelligent because it doesn’t have a soul. There is absolutely no scientific rigor in your argument, you’re basically saying you’re right, and your reason for believing your right, is because you believe you are.

It’s really not difficult. You made a statement that stated that you believe that there is consensus, so presumably that means that you know where that consensus exists, therefore provide a link to it. If you cannot then you cannot make the assertion that consensus exists, because by definition it doesn’t.

Your entire argument rests on the basic idea that there is a scientific definition for consciousness and we have a test for if something is conscious or not. There is no test because there is no consensus. It is not possible for you to prove through scientific rigor that you are conscious, and presumably you’re human. So how can they possibly be consensus on something as contentious as artificial intelligence?

Electronic voting has been compromised multiple times in the United States so that’s demonstrably untrue

Not only is that false, it doesn’t make logical sense…

Argument by assertion and you haven’t proven the assertion

Lots of people agree on a different definitions of consciousness.

Lots of people can’t agree on a different definition. Is there a different definitions then by it’s very nature people do not agree.

And all human brains are doing is firing neural impulses.

It’s incredibly reductionist to reject AI consciousness simply on the basis that it’s software. To be clear I don’t think LLMs are conscious but that’s not the same as saying that an AI could never be conscious.

Aa’s are almost certainly not conscious but it been a computer is not an argument against consciousness. There’s no reason to believe that you need biological material for consciousness.

After all humans are primarily made of carbon which itself demonstrably does not think. It’s the structure that’s important and a fair argument could be made to say that the structure of a brain is replicated in software in an AI and therefore the medium isn’t relevant to the question.

I’m not really sure what the point of having a conversation about consciousness is. As far as I’m aware no one has ever actually been able to define consciousness in such a way that it could be tested for.

So how could we possibly know one way or the other?

Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness

Oh great so we’ve only just started the article and we’re already mudding the waters. This bodes well. There is no reason to necessarily believe that a system has to be conscious in order to be intelligent. We have multiple examples of consciousness without intelligence (see my fat cat) so there’s no reason to believe that the inverse can also not be true.

When the shareholders are casting votes on things in the company I work for they use an iPad. I’m reasonably confident that the side loaded iPad app they use is more secure than the US voting systems.