Just imagine if someone actually have success and an AGI just start happily chatting about everything, properly solving general problems like a 30 something engineer, mathematician or whatever.
No one in the planet would know how to be sure it's not just emulating human behavior.
by processing the videos in TT, looking at faces of the people, extrapolating their emotional state in the moment..
..the dataset could include the "emotional state" of the situation, the scene showed in the video. Then you'd have a dataset which would include "emotions" precisely described and associated to even a precise geographical location (i.e. the humor in Thailand would be different than the humor in Manhattan, NY),
Then you could train a LLM with a human emotional state analysis capability
..by not just inferring emotion by text (an "emerged" capability) like the text-trained LLM like chatGPT, but by clearly, certainly defined emotions attached to a precise scene and a precise text describing the scene.
Then you input a human conversation into the LLM, and make it infer what's going on in the scene, the situation behind the conversation, by knowing the emotional state of the different persons in the conversation.
And by now, there are billions of public conversations available to scrap, many of them fully attributable to fully identificable people (think Instagram).
There will be even more billions in the coming years, and the "emotional capable" LLM would just get better at its game.
No surprise the american government is - fastly, by all means necessary - looking to seriously slow down the chinese AI research complex.
best bet, it's feeding, right now, a giant dataset.
What someone could do with the known tecnology - not including hyphotetical AGI level tech, close to scifi - and that amount of information, probably automatically - even quite easily give how the input gets into the system - tagged and filtered data, could be in realms of several billions of value, maybe in months from now (just take a look at the value of OpenAI by now, 29 billions).
My 2nd bet is they are obviously using some of that data to improve their game, whatever systems they have behind the app, maximizing whatever thing they're maximizing (you'd think "money", but that's too linear, maybe they have 50 parallel targets).
"Maybe because we're playing with the 'inner stuff' of things, without really knowing it nor knowing what we are really doing."
I see in how OpenAI is playing the game of filtering inputs and outputs, they know this. They probably know they don't know precisely what they don't know about LLMs. There could be some dangerous stuff in there if you just let the thing go wild on the open Internet.
I'm not really expecting a scifi scenario, the Skynet thing and everything (just imagine how much surprised I'd be by waking up to the WWIII against an AGI). But I do think unexpected consequences are a thing to be worry with unrestrained LLMs, even if they are a light year - or a 100 - from AGI.
Automation can lead to very dangerous and even unpredectible outcomes not in systems or infrastructure, but in the real world, meat-space. Just think about Stuxnet, what could have happened if the sabotage would have been inmediately identified and precisely attributed? Could the events have developed differently than they did by thinking the incident was some freak accident?
Then you let these an unrestrained LLM produce some dangerous output, then some big geopolitical thing got badly broken somewhere really important for powers that be. Some humans think about retribution, then things start to go south really fast.
Some self-restriction in LLM is happening elsewhere, the Stable Diffusion guys did it well, just not letting the v2 thing draw "anything possible", which would include some of worst, most creepies ideas of mankind about everything, literally.
no biggy, thanks for your words, it's very much appreciated. I do live well, thinking about these things brings obviously some considerations, but ultimately I don't think about myself as a script, aside the technical considerations I also need to include a margin of error to these philosofical zombie hypothesis, and if there is 1% chance of error in it (which I think there should be a lot more, for there are lots of factors to be considered), I would be resigning my free will to a false assumption, so that's why I can't live under the assumption I have no free will.
Look at the history, many "definitive" hypothesis have been refuted along the centuries, when thinking about these I can just wonder how many people have lived their entire life under false premises, just because they were 100% sure "their" philosophy was the "definitive truth".
The truth in real life is a more fluid concept, it constantly changes with entropy (the main culprit if you go all the way down the reasons for change), so I can't take my hypothesis of human determinism as a definitive truth, neither live my life under that premise.
I'd recommend to anyone also to not live theirs thinking they cannot change their own fate.
let's talk about real stuff, a live running model right now. chatGPT is currently storing chats with it, if somehow openAI got to re-feed - even taking offline and redeploying the model after that - those previous chats into the tokens, wualá, you've got an AI fred from immediacy.
Practical stuff like "store memories", "replace human senses", "AIs can't walk the world as humans", etc. are feasible to be solved with current commodity technology, even without hypothetical future highly capable robots.
I'll divert a little from the exact answer to the comment..
I've said it in another comment, it looks like Tiktok could be exactly this kind of "eyes and ears", it could be the - one of the - perfect continuously information collection systems "looking into the world" for an strong AI (yeah, right now), but most certainly is just an incredible business model turned into an almost free giant datasets generator.
I cannot get to think that someone could have created tiktok to "see into the world" for AIs / create datasets, from the scratch, but it is possible too.
".. it must ever be a parasite on human cultural production for it to gain what you call "knowledge"
This thing goes way deep into AI theories, but probaly AGI and artificial beings self-consciusness are two different problems. I think when the second problem gets solved, the human cultural production would no longer be necessary to "create" new AI / AGIs.
haha, looks like tiktok could be a massive information collection system, eyes and ears in all the world, updating the "state of the world" at the second, right now probably for a giant dataset, in a future, for a live AI.
Plus, the other datapoints, which enrich the IAs "senses" way beyond the human experience: current climate, precise date/time, precise day of the week, updated to the second geolocation, proximity to other - known, recent, previously unknown- tiktok sessions/users.
Plus too, the system pays itself, not something to take lightly: if tiktoks is feeding AIs pipelines (or a live strong AI), it's bill are automatically paid just by keeping itself running. Quite awesome.
emotions = = token's value for some stuff in certain context, like a burial or a birth mentioned not as a joke.
so, LLM probably already have a form of understanding emotions, it's unclear yet if they could "feel" something given they are given the chance to "live" an emotion:
It seems the current applied filters and/or technical limitations of the current transformers iterations are not really exploring / exploiting the "internal state" - of whatever close related analogy to human psychology can be made to their "present" values of tokens - of the LLMs for anything related to their wanted ouputs (images, text).
i.e. humans can do this, you certainly can "process" "opening a door" and "produce" an output, the opened door, with emotions or without emotions.
So emotions aren't strictly necessary to perform lots of tasks, hence LLMs probably won't need them for a while.
Humans actually take very little to non relevant decisions. The "free will" is mostly an illusion, you "choose" between equivalent options, not between actually different "life paths".
You can "decide" you won't "build a nest", but you'll certainly look for refuge if it is raining, or it's very cold. In the end, the human behavior is actually fully deterministic.
I'm sure FAANG already know this because they have the datapoints from billions of humans beings doing exactly the same stuff everyday for decades now.
This is probably how LLM can extrapolate all the things they "know" from human generated text: their tokens reflect the human behavior determinism a its fullest expression
(hence at more data for training, much better/closer their behavior ressemble the human behavior/ideas)
But organic intelligence is by its nature - genetics - almost full deterministic, very few - if any - behaviors are left without being pre-ordered by their genetic constrains and/or the cultural environment resulted from those same genetic constrains.
Human for instance, are mostly "cognitive hamsters", running every day into their "cognitive wheels": incessantly - but for sleeping - looking for money, happiness, food, sex, etc. mostly a very short list of drives. No matter the year, the geolocation, the language they speak.
No one in the planet would know how to be sure it's not just emulating human behavior.