Nobody can know, but I think it is fairly clearly possible without signs of sentience that we would consider obvious and indisputable. The definition of 'intelligence' is bearing a lot of weight here, though, and some people seem to favour a definition that makes 'non-sentient intelligence' a contradiction.
As far as I know, and I'm no expert in the field, there is no known example of intelligence without sentience. Actual AI is basically algorithm and statistics simulating intelligence.
Definitely a definition / semantics thing. If I ask an LLM to sketch the requirements for life support for 46 people, mixed ages, for a 28 month space journey… it does pretty good, “simulated” or not.
If I ask a human to do that and they produce a similar response, does it mean the human is merely simulating intelligence? Or that their reasoning and outputs were similar but the human was aware of their surroundings and worrying about going to the dentist at the same time, so genuinely intelligent?
There is no formal definition to snap to, but I’d argue “intelligence” is the ability to synthesize information to draw valid conclusions. So, to me, LLMs can be intelligent. Though they certainly aren’t sentient.
Can you spell out your definition of 'intelligence'? (I'm not looking to be ultra pedantic and pick holes in it -- just to understand where you're coming from in a bit more detail.) The way I think of it, there's not really a hard line between true intelligence and a sufficiently good simulation of intelligence.
I would say that "true" intelligence will allow someone/something to build a tool that never existed before while intelligence simulation will only allow someone/something to reproduce tools that already known. I would make a difference between someone able to use all his knowledge to find a solution to a problem using tools he knows of and someone able to discover a new tool while solving the same problem.
I'm not sure the latter exists without sentience.
I honestly don't think humans fit your definition of intelligent. Or at least not that much better than LLMs.
Look at human technology history...it is all people doing minor tweaks on what other people did. Innovation isn't the result of individual humans so much as it is the result of the collective of humanity over history.
If humans were truly innovative, should we not have invented for instance at least a way of society and economics that was stable, by now? If anything surprise me about humans it is how "stuck" we are in the mold of what others humans do.
Circulate all the knowledge we have over and over, throw in some chance, some reasoning skills of the kind LLMs demonstrate every day in coding, have millions of instances most of whom never innovate anything but some do, and a feedback mechanism -- that seems like human innovation history to me, and does not seem like demonstrating anything LLMs clearly do not possess. Except of course not being plugged into history and the world the way humans are.
> Nothing was more scary than the invention of the nuclear weapon. And we're all still here.
Except that building a nuclear weapon was not available to everyone, certainly not to dumb people whose brain have been feeded with social media content.
I usually don't correct typos and/or grammar, but you asked for it. Calling random people "dumb" while using an incorrect past tense is pretty funny. It is "fed", not "feeded"...
> (1) Won't an SSH key with a passphrase solve this? Whoever picks up the lost USB stick won't be able to guess a good passphrase.
Yes but in that case your passphrase is your only security.
Keeping your private key private, gives you 2 security levels: you must have the key and know the passphrase.
You can skip the first 42 minutes that are about how bad is an article titled "how antimatter space craft will work". This part is absolutely boring as hell !
And people with children cannot understand what it is to live a whole life in full freedom. I'm over 50 years old and I fully love my life as it is and have never regretted my choice of not having children (and never will).
Not that my choice is suitable for everybody, but the most common choice is not suitable for everybody either.
This is a matter of personal preference of course. But the way you phrased it, "a whole life in full freedom" tells me you think it's either all or nothing. If you can't enjoy the full freedom in the last years of your life, does it take away from the previous years?
For better or worse people with kids know both lives, people without kids only know one. It's like saying "you'll never know how it is to eat an entire cake". Maybe you ate much of it, that counts for something. Now you're on to the next cake. You might bite more than you can chew but this goes for everything.
The value of this freedom is the highest when you're young, experimenting, putting your life on some track. Being "free" at 65 doesn't have anywhere near the same value as it does at 20. Once you do it (almost) all, everything else becomes more of the same doesn't it? That cake I was mentioning? The first bite tasted a whole lot better than the last.
There's no right or wrong, everyone knows their preference and personal circumstances. But your explanation felt like a knee-jerk reaction.
Hard disagree, I lived my life without children, the hedonism and lack of responsibility. And you can live this until death. And I didn’t discount such a life in my writing. I stated that having children fundamentally changes you, in a way you will never understand
Given State of World, my take on it is there's far more hedonism and irresponsibility in having kids.
It's nice they make you happy, but will their lives be happy?
The evidence says it's very unlikely.
My choice is not to inflict that experience on another sentient being. I'm really not seeing anything at the moment that encourages me to question that.
> Given State of World, my take on it is there's far more hedonism and irresponsibility in having kids.
Compared to what? We're living in some of the best times humanity as a whole ever had. Deciding en-masse to not have kids is the irresponsible thing because it literally condemns humanity to extinction and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're cursing the world because you stubbed your toe. Social media inflicted this kind of feeling a lot over the last couple of decades.
> but will their lives be happy?
You'd have to ask them. Humans overwhelmingly choose to live so you could conclude that they prefer existing over the alternative. Happiness is very relative and you'd have a hard time defining it even for yourself, let alone for your hypothetical unborn child.
> The evidence says it's very unlikely.
There's absolutely no evidence to support anything you said. It's your personal preference and you're entitled to it. Why don't you own your choice instead of putting it on fictitious evidence that your unborn child will be unhappy?
> My choice is not to inflict that experience on another sentient being
Whatever you pick you're making that choice for you, not for them.
And at least in my experience, children do not get existential despair about the state of the world until adulthood, unless it is given to them from outside forces.
Children don't know the world exists beyond their town until they're instructed on it!
For a different perspective: the world today is not perfect, but when I compare the current state of the world with how our ancestors lived from the Roman empire to the last century I think my kids have a high chances to do much better than that average.
My direct ancestors lived through some harrowing times without losing their will to live and if they were alive today they would likely feel this is a great time to be alive. My 2c.
And the very act of hope that having kids is (and it is a strong act of hope, no denial) changes your outlook on life and the state of the world, too.
Sometimes to more abject despair, but often to more hope.
People shouldn't be forced at gunpoint to have children, but they also shouldn't be dragged down into insecurity and despair that it's financially impossible.
You can choose to end your bloodline, and your opinion is the human race should go extinct now like a race of eunuchs have taken over. But I could personally not disagree more
Sure we do, not everybody got married and got kids at 20.
And I mean proper life, backpacking for months around south east asia, himalaya, diving in remote tropical islands, doing extreme mountain sports to the fullest capacity. You know, stuff that adds easily many decades of life actually experienced.
It doesnt compare, it cant.
But there is a catch - to have a chance for actually being a good long term stable parent (and also having and raising kids in a similar way), 2 balanced individuals need to meet and be close to each other on many levels, and then keep working on it. Something I dont see often around me unfortunately in these me-me-me times, with corresponding consequences. Better having no kids than be a miserable parent, raising another miserable generation of permanent cripples.
Just wait till you hit 60s and the pool of nice things you can do keeps shrinking dramatically, I've heard such phrases before and then heard regrets some time later.
As a fellow manyKid™ enjoyer I know what you mean. Even your "free time" is guided and directed by kids, and when you DO get some time alone with the wife or a good friend, you talk about the kids.
It really is a change that's not quite possible to convey with words.
There are a lot of entities involved that need to be able to work together. Creating a form fractures things and requires all partners to move to said fork. It's far easier to work upstream even with resistance. Anyone who has maintained a long standing Linux fork understands the costs of trying to rebase thousands of patches. There will never be enough of a migration to make it unnecessary to need to rebase.
"Hey upstream maintainer, let me commit a bunch of code in a language you can't even read. You get to maintain it forever while I get to move on to bigger and better things. I am better that you after all: I know this cool new language and you don't."
"We wrote a single piece of Rust code that abstracts the C API for all Rust drivers, which we offer to maintain ourselves".
I wish that HN as a whole could maintain a respectful and curious tone of debate when these threads come up. Feel like both rust advocates and skeptics could do a lot better.
