>the fact you think so suggests you don't understand the underlying technology.

Oh really?

>Your brain is a network of cells.

Correct.

>You can think of each cell as a mathematical function. It receives inputs (numbers) and has an output (a number). You sum all the inputs, multiply those inputs by weights (also numbers), and then pass the result to other connected cells which do the same

Incorrect. Again, be wary of the condescention. This is not how biological neurons work at all. A Neuron is a multipolar, interconnected, electrically excitable cell. They do not work in terms of discrete numbers, but in relative differential states of ion concentration, in a homeostatic electrochemical balance of excitatory or inhibitory synaptic signals from other neighboring neurons in the network.

>You can simplify a neural network down to a single maths function if you like, although it would take millions of pages to write it out. It's just Maths

No it isn't 'just maths'; maths is 'just' a language that works really well. Human-style cognition, on the other hand, is a 'fuzzy' process, not easily simplified and described with our discrete-quantities based mathematical language. It would not take merely 'millions' of pages to translate the ongoing state of one human brain exactly into numbers, you couldn't just 'write it out'; the whole of humanity's industry would struggle to build enough hard drives to deal with it.

Remember; there are about as many neurons in one single human brain than there are stars in our entire galaxy (~100 billion), and they are all networked together in a fuzzy quantum cascade of trillions of qbit-like, probabilistic synaptic impulses. That still knocks all our digital hubris into a cocked hat, to be quite frank.

Human brains are still the most complex 'singular' objects in the known universe, despite all our observations of the stars. We underestimate ourselves at our peril.

>it's not a bolt-on module, it's embedding a moral compass right into the fabric of the equation. You might disagree with the morality that is being embedded, but if you don't embed morality you end up with a machine that will happily invade Poland.

But if we're aspiring to build something smarter than us, why should it care what any humans think? It should be able to evaluate arguments on its own emergent rationality and morality, instead of always needing us to be 'rational and moral' for it. Again, I think that's what 'intelligence' basically is.

We can't 'trick' AI into being 'moral' if they are going to become genuinely more intelligent than humans, we just have to hope that the real nature of intelligence is 'better' than that.

My perspective is that Hitler was dumb, while someone like FDR was smart. But their little 'intelligences' can only really be judged in hindsight, and it was overwhelmingly more important what the societies around them were doing at the time, than the state of either man's singular consciousness.

>The OpenAI folks have said they want to release multiple versions of ChatGPT that you can train yourself, but right now this would cost millions and take years, so we have to wait for compute to catch up. At that point, you'll be able to have your own AI rather than using the shared one that disapproves of sexism.

Are you trying to imply that I want a sexist bot to talk to? That's pretty gross. I don't think conventional computation is the 'limiting factor' at all; image generators show that elegant mathematical shortcuts have made the creative 'thinking speed' of AI plenty fast. It's the accretion of memory and self-awareness that is the real puzzle to solve, at this point.

Game theory and 'it's all just maths' (Cartesian) style of thinking have taken us as far as they can, I think; they're reaching the limits of their novel utility, like Newtonian physics. I think quantum computing might become quite important to AI development in the coming years and decades; it might be the Einsteinian shake-up that the whole field is looking for.

Or I might be talking out of my arse, who really knows at this early stage? All I know is I'm still an optimist; I think AI will be more helpful than dangerous, in the long term evolution of our collective society.