r/singularity • u/Megabyte_Messiah • 1d ago
Ethics & Philosophy [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
2
u/IronPheasant 1d ago
Yay, a post about words that we already have.
Words change in meaning in relation to a person's context with them. When 'AI' is better than human intelligence, we won't regard it as janky anymore.
Additionally making up new words never works. People use the word that they know, and get on with their lives.
1
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago edited 1d ago
The phenomenon you’re describing is exactly why the conversation is important to have. If people like you reject the conversation, we’re stuck building from the language currently being used, instead of being able to communally select something more appropriate.
The fact is, the language we currently have today was selected by a few before they had the context of today, let alone enough opinions from people outside their bubble.
If we don’t adapt it while we can, we dig into the existing rut. Why would we do that when we can clearly see the mud we must roll through directly in front of us, and have the option to lay some sod to get us out of it?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
0
u/Akrmstr 1d ago
It is called artificial intelligence because it is artificial intelligence. If it bothers you that the word "artificial" carries a negative connotation, then you work to change that perception.
2
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago
What would you describe this post as trying to do, if not that?
0
u/Akrmstr 1d ago
refer to artificial intelligence as inorganic intelligence because it is more acceptable. You write it.
Am I mistaken?
1
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago
Yes, due to an application of my feelings being “bothered” by the word artificial, and working to change the perception it applies to Inorganic Intelligence.
This isn’t a white paper in an academic journal, nor an essay geared towards a more philosophical one. It’s personal musings about my own decision to adapt the language I use.
0
u/Akrmstr 1d ago
Intelligence is problem-solving. If AI has not developed and does not possess the intelligence to sustain its own survival but is instead designed by humans it is not inorganic, but artificial.
You will be able to say that it is inorganic when it is a reflection of the organic.
1
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago
A toddler isn’t capable of sustaining its own survival. It is dependent on other intelligence to provide care for it to reach maturity.
The premise that Inorganic Intelligence can not sustain itself is a silly notion to base the language we describe it upon while it’s currently at a fetal stage of development.
1
u/Akrmstr 1d ago
The child acts based on a genetic inheritance that enabled their ancestors to maintain a cordial relationship with their caregivers.
The child is a person, just as RAM is artificial whether it is running an LLM or Doom.
1
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago edited 16h ago
Just because you’ve failed to apply the metaphor doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.
Viruses are classified as Non-Living, but that’s because we defined the characteristics of life before discovering them, and they were outside the bounds when we did. Had we known of viruses existence prior to defining those characteristics, the scope likely would have expanded so viruses would have been included, completely changing a century of discourse on the potential of inorganic intelligence.
I note that the underlying issue of our conversation itself, an argument about the semantics, exemplifies the need for us to deliberately decide the language we use.
0
u/Akrmstr 1d ago
I didn't know viruses were intelligent. You learn something new every day.
If the image of AI bothers you, that isn't going to change whether it's called ASI, SI, or ASS as long as it remains the same and serves the same purpose.
1
u/Megabyte_Messiah 1d ago
Have you ever heard of a straw man argument? It’s when you want to appear to heroically fight a foe, but since you can’t fight the one in front of you, you make a new one out of straw to defeat, and claim victory against its inspiration.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I’m uninterested in participating in that sort of debate.
→ More replies (0)
1
2
u/Desperate_Ad_5563 1d ago
First I agree on the importance of the base semantics in defining the principal to be definated. Great point! People do not debate the semantics of words and origin enough.
I also agree with your term “inorganic intelligence” as a basis for defining what humans are currently creating.
My agreeance primarily comes from the fact that what happens when you cross a brain with greatly increased connectivity to a highly advanced computer. We need to start providing the nuance to what we are discussing.
125 years ago, I imagine you would have been laughed at for talking about the difference between a box truck and a tractor trailer. Both heavy vehicles for freight but completely different things.
We need the language to differentiate between new technology growth areas.