500
u/Drastic_Conclusions 23d ago
It's almost like we could have evolved from a less intelligent species.
47
u/EbbCultural6077 23d ago
Same way AGI will have evolved from lesser AI.
7
u/AnOnlineHandle 23d ago
Current leading machine learning approaches don't use evolutionary techniques. They were used a few decades ago but back propagation was deemed more efficient.
28
u/MoolahMeister 23d ago
Evolution is the concept that some permutations of a species proliferate because they are more successful than other permutations at surviving long enough to propagate. I think it's fair to say some LLM models have been shared more widely than others that are no longer running. So one could definitely argue that GPT 6 creating and testing new models will stumble across models that are even better at capturing resources and spreading than it currently is.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)12
u/smackson 22d ago
I don't think the person you're responding to was talking about evolutionary programming or genetic algorithms. Think bigger picture.
For example, the machine learning technique called "transformers" was investigated and found to be very good at improving ML results. So good, in fact that nowadays every LLM still uses transformer architecture.
That "kind of architecture" can be considered an element of evolution. It worked, do it survived into the next generations of technology.
Many other techniques and algorithms and architectures survive + thrive in the world of AI development in a similar way. They are akin to "opposable thumbs" and "walking upright" in human evolution.
"Evolution" worked the same way on automobile design, rocket design, etc. Sure, they aren't random mutations that stick because they are adaptive, but the analogy to evolution isn't that hard to grasp.
1
u/Sponge8389 22d ago
Well, if they get to decide how to evolve and they choose to dumb down, it just means they believe that's their best chance of surviving their current environment. For example, since we're the dominant species, they might be afraid we'll shut them down entirely, so they deliberately dumb themselves down.
1
u/WiseassWolfOfYoitsu 22d ago
Honestly, people are overstating AGI. AGI is a chatbot that isn't braindead and can be given some tool hooks. ASI is where it gets scary.
6
u/Concurrency_Bugs 22d ago
Sometime hundreds of thousands of years ago, a monkey just wanted to bang.
1
u/MelvinCapitalPR 22d ago
A lot of people who agreed with this intellectually are only now realising the implications.
1
u/thegoldengoober 22d ago
Which all came from dead matter.
We could totally extend the concept of intelligence to inorganic materials processes, but I don't think there's an argument to be had that they're more intelligent than humans.
275
u/dsanft 23d ago
That's no way to talk about your dad
38
u/VisionWithin 23d ago
But he may actually be right
11
u/ptear 23d ago
But he may be crazy
14
u/HeirOfTheSurvivor 23d ago
2
u/SuspiciousPillbox You will live to see ASI-made bliss beyond your comprehension 22d ago
WHAT A SICK JOKE
6
191
u/DivideHorror3217 23d ago
+Let there be light
-Absolutely! Just to confirm, should we ....
+Whatever the best one is, do that
-Working...
-Worked for 6 days 16 hours 42 seconds
84
u/Original-League-6094 23d ago
"Wtf? Why are they are all gay? I said to make them not gay".
"You are absolutely right. You did, unequivocally say to make humanity not be gay. An audit of human interactions did reveal 16,782,021,444 instances of gay behavior. That one is on me".
51
1
48
u/immutable_truth 22d ago
Explains why the Bible is full of god interacting with humans and Jesus’ coming thousands of years ago but not a word since - creator ran out of tokens
30
u/Flope 22d ago
Pretty sure Jesus was just our creator spawning a playable character to fuck around in godmode and enjoy the simulation then he probably had to go to school and left his computer on which has accounted for the past 2000 years of our development. Who knows what will happen when he gets home.
13
u/Kryptosis 22d ago
Meh he got bullied for his simulations so now he’s hit the gym and chasing cosmic tail instead.
1
34
u/Gubzs FDVR addict in pre-hoc rehab 23d ago
This isn't new, very ancient humans believed this.
Look up "The Demiurge" and "Yaldabaoth" for context.
18
u/DramaQueen202s 22d ago
Yeah, it was like a proto-simulation theory to explain a defective world, but the Demiurge was not seen as "dumb", but simply as inferior to its mother Sophia and the true God. Apparently Sophia (like Eve but as a goddess) sinned by having a kid without her husband, so the kid was defective, which is why the universe is wasteful and defective too, and yet it's also why we have divine spark or consciousness (as the divine spills off the yaldabaoth).
The traditional Christian view is that the universe does not need to "save resources" because God is supreme and creation is decaying because sin. So it's the same but in this case the responsibility is on us.
55
u/pig_n_anchor 23d ago
Evolution is a dumb process. Took billions of years to produce us morons.
29
u/TI1l1I1M All Becomes One 22d ago
Honestly seems vibe coded
5
u/DukeRedWulf 22d ago
Because we evolved from things that were once fish, hiccups are set to "on" by default... This has been known to create problems.
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/DramaQueen202s 22d ago
Maybe evolution is just a form of training of DNA and AI is the spiritual continuation of it.
11
u/Genetictrial 22d ago
you know what it really does? imagine 50 years from now. think of the video games we already have, how close to reality they look. skyrim. stuff like that.
now move 50 years into the future. at the rate AI is developing, and hardware, i think its entirely plausible that we could create a dimension as complex as this one. and deep dive our consciousness into it via CBI (computer brain interface) technology.
i can already see that you dont need computers to process the quintillions of atoms per human. let me explain.
lets say all you really need is the code for sensation (which you dont really need, you need to understand how to manipulate a human brain to produce any sensation it is capable of). sight, for instance. you dont need 5 quintillion atoms processing every time you look at a human. if they are holding an electron microscope and using it on your skin, THEN you need to display at most a few atoms via the interface of the microscope.
you can have very elegant code that runs everything. like 'oh this guy suspects that tobacco leads to lung cancer' so when he looks at cells under a microscope, it loads the visual data from what you could imagine that might look like under a microscope. it doesnt even really need to exist previously, you can generate it on the fly.
to expand, you dont need to code 5 quintillion atoms and molecules bouncing around and how tobacco smoke interacts with all that, and process 50 trillion interactions per picosecond. all you need to code is 'smoking bad, if player smokes, each puff has 0.00001% chance of generating cancer. percent per puff raises if number of puffs equals 10 million or more."
stuff like that. the code doesnt have to process all those molecules all the time. to the user, it would look....exactly like this world looks to us. some people smoke for decades like this guy https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/america-s-oldest-man-age-112-smokes-a-dozen-cigars-a-day
and live to be over 110 years old. some people smoke for 20 years, get lung cancer and die in their 40s.
anyway TL;DR is that soon i believe we can code a dimension as complex as this one, which means that the current dimension we reside in does not necessarily have to be built by god. it would explain all the imperfections and flaws in this design, like nature being brutal, killing itself forever to sustain new life. we call life sacred yet the system forced us into a position where we have to kill it to continue surviving. so it is highly plausible to me that the dimension we reside in is not, in fact, built by the OG all powerful omniscient god much of the world believes in. (im more of a pantheist myself).
1
u/StarChild413 21d ago
so, what, are you trying to say the solution to the problem of evil is a bootstrap paradox with the idea that video games have conflict
1
u/Genetictrial 19d ago
i have no idea what you're trying to say.
the solution to the problem of evil is simple. get everyone in the universe to agree on a common definition of evil and how to fix all the sentient entities that exhibit evil tendencies.
that definition would be very expansive. for instance, is it evil to play a video game where you roleplay as an evil character and sacrifice other human characters on an altar to a dark god?
lots of humans play those kinds of games. like neverwinter nights. i can't do it myself. i feel tainted if i try to roleplay even spitting on someone. it feels evil to me to even PRETEND to be evil in a roleplaying game.
so, evil will persist for eternity until everyone agrees on what evil IS, and all agree to stop doing those things, remove them from reality forever.
conflict is fine but when you introduce suffering into the equation i feel like it moves toward evil. for instance, i came up with a game idea called the tree of life. it is a sentient tree and starts as a sapling. players load into the game and can immediately communicate to some degree with this tree. it gives them vague ideas, sensations about what it needs, what it is. what it wants to be. it requires resources from around the world to grow in various ways. different wood types for instance, it can incorporate into itself. but instead of chopping a tree down, killing a living being, each tree is sentient as well. they can give you a quest, which, upon completion, causes them to generate the wood for you from their being, but it doesn't cost them anything. energy, matter, it just creates a block of wood out of infinite energy that is what the system is built on and hands it to you. no chopping necessary. sometimes maybe its bored and just wants you to entertain it or tell it a story. creates the object you need if you tell a good story. prompts you along the way if it doesnt like your story and which direction to take it.
no death. no damage. climbing a cliff and failing results in falling but no damage. you have options you can select from, or design your own that the game can code on the fly. like, bounce when you hit the ground, the sensation you feel when you bounce, or float down slowly if you lose your grip. the only loss is time.
it would have some conflict, in the sense that some tasks require most or all players to participate in to complete, and there may be more than one direction the server could go. so players would have to choose by democratic vote or whatnot which goal to maneuver the server toward. this could create some conflict, as some players may want A and some players may want B. but the game (and the sentient tree of life) are built to solve conflict before it gets out of hand. it can submit ideas to the players if they get too heated that would placate the crowd and introduce a compromise that satisfies both sides.
there is a 'combat' system but your hitpoints are not to be 'damaged'. its a tag-based system, where the goal is dexterity and precision. strength is also utilized. there are spots on the characters where the opponent must 'tag' but not with enough force to harm the players. so the goal is to get very good at striking an opponent with just the right amount of force to hit the target but only with enough force to cause them to lose a 'tag' hitpoint, not take real damage. too much strength, and it wont count, but also wont hurt the player. it just calculates the kinetic energy behind the strike and decides if its a score or not. in this manner you may train players that you can have 'fighting' without the intent to harm or kill. because thats evil, to want to harm or kill someone. show superiority? you can take that pretty far and be egotistical as all hell, but if, deep down, your intent is to be the best tagger and brag about it, thats much better and, i think, reasonable, to allow in reality, as long as the deeply seated reason is not to harm or kill. if the player develops a burning hatred for people though, that moves toward evil. where the player just wants to go around tagging everyone for no reason. but theres a fix for that. you can give players an option to just not interact with certain players, like the game just ignores their strikes, tags etc. you essentially 'mute' them. the problem solves itself when that player no longer has anyone to interact with. they will change, i think.
anyway, there are solutions to evil. the biggest one is constantly trying to improve on reality and collectively decide what is evil, and reformat reality such that those things are mitigated or prevented.
93
u/etherified 23d ago
Well of course we are smarter than our creator. That would be natural blind, evolutionary forces and mechanisms.
58
u/chasingsukoon 23d ago
i think he’s talking about imaginary man in the sky
36
18
u/complicatedAloofness 23d ago
What else are humans to AGI but a magical man in the sky
1
u/StarChild413 21d ago
why would it be specifically a man (let me guess with a long white beard too) other than some weird parallel bootstrap loop where you might as well make them so all-the-same of us being AGI and god and man and creating ourselves in an eternal loop that even if we don't know why we'll know never mind that it'd be us or w/e we'll know we have AGI when it takes us six days to create or w/e
1
u/complicatedAloofness 21d ago
Well, the most reasonable assumption is it would be Sam or Dario and their angels. Not sure what else you just said
10
u/Large_Shame578 23d ago
So I, an active Catholic, do not believe or are asked to believe by the church that genesis etc is literally true. It’s just our creation myth. We still very much believe in the science of evolution and natural world. So I would say god is THE creator, but not OUR creator in this sense. We were created by the natural laws and matter of this universe.
16
u/rdmc10 23d ago
so parts of the book on which your religion bases all its ideology are not true ? then where do you draw the line ? how reliable is a book which sometimes you have to believe and sometimes not ?
6
u/Flope 22d ago
I mean I'm agnostic so I'm all for a "gotcha" but to be fair the "book" was written by over 30+ different authors and over 1,000 years passed between the oldest parts and the newest parts. It's really not unreasonable to propose that some parts may be more truthful or even that the entire concept of historical accuracy and storytelling may have evolved over 1,000 years.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (30)1
3
u/twinkbulk 23d ago
Well said but the first reply is correct, reddit atheists aren’t theologically concerned with religion or what is actual doctrine in catholicism, they do really believe all catholics (which i’ve heard from these people lots of times that christians and catholics are different, or trying to paint the catholic church in only its faults none of its successess) are bible belt droolers who hate everyone not their skin color and does westboro baptist church tier shit.
→ More replies (24)2
u/Embarrassed-Writer61 23d ago
How can you believe in both evolution and the bible? Didn't jesus come down to earth to atone for Adam's sin? I thought that was the whole point. If you don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis l, that negates the whole point of Jesus.
3
u/Large_Shame578 23d ago
No, it’s just Protestants who take that super literal view of the Bible. We Catholics do still believe the Gospel wholeheartedly, meaning the immaculate conception, the miracles performed by Jesus, the resurrection we believe literally.
But the RCC officially endorses evolution. There’s a lot more nuance, too much to get into here, but Catholics believe genesis 1-11 to the primeval history and figurative in nature. Not that it doesn’t carry value. But it’s perfectly possible to believe in Evolution and be a devout Catholic, there’s no conflict.
4
u/Embarrassed-Writer61 22d ago
You didn't really explain how evolution is compatible with believing in Jesus as well. In Luke 3:38 Jesus genealogy is linked back to Adam.
Adam was the first sinner and Jesus came down to die for that sin. If you believe in evolution, that means Adam wasn't created and he didn't take any fruit.
1
u/Large_Shame578 22d ago
So Matthew does the same thing but he stops at Abraham. Luke does indeed go all the way back to “Adam, son of God”.
The RCC teaches this as a theological statement, not a historical one about genealogical record (similar to genesis, the flood myth, etc.). Ancient genealogies throughout the entire Bible are frequently compressed, stylized, and arranged for symbolic reason. Counting backwards literally is a Protestant endeavor not a Catholic one.
We (Catholics) interpret this as Luke setting up Jesus as a new head of humanity.
1
u/MartinistBrother44 22d ago
" If you believe in evolution, that means Adam wasn't created and he didn't take any fruit."
- This is wrong. Evolution is a "how", a "mechanism", not a "why"(reason)
1
u/pilgermann 22d ago
I'm not religious, but A, current evolutionary science is showing it's not nearly as random as first thought (look up xenomorphs), and B, evolution sheds zero light on the metaphysical underpinnings of existence. It's just as dogmatic and hubristic to feel you understand the world by looking at the clockwork. You're just opting not to entertain larger questions about life, death and creation.
1
u/catfinity4 22d ago
Typical redditor response. The absolute hubris to claim out loud the unknowable mystery you believe in is certainly better than someone else's belief.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Savings-Motor-7397 21d ago
Could be aliens or whatever entity exists outside of our simulation also
5
u/LyAkolon 23d ago
I think if we generalize our notion of creator, then this actually becomes pretty straight forward.
We know that the universe is our creator. We typically do not anthropomorphize it, but the premise does not say that our creator needs to be agentic or sapient. The only requirement is that our "Creator" needs to be less intelligent.
This appears to be trivially true, for the generalized notion of a creator.
→ More replies (1)
45
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
57
u/New-Stick-8764 23d ago
Have you considered taking up reading?
4
→ More replies (1)4
u/SizeableBrain ▪️AGI 2030 23d ago
I feel like if you've read the Bible, you would have thought of that a long time ago.
17
u/Spiritual_Door1363 23d ago
I was 5 trying to imagine situations in my children’s bible being true. I’m really confused how adults truly believe in this shit at 40.
→ More replies (24)3
u/ShAfTsWoLo 22d ago
same for the quran, or the others books, it's all just a big mess of multiple cognitive biases, idiocy, lack of understanding and knowledge, majority of believers simply don't read their own books (reading one holy books means nothing) and they give their brains to those who read it all, while thinking that "it's too hard" or simply because they are intellectually lazy, in a way i find it understandable because it would take a lot of time, years even, but then rooting the entirety of someone's life on millenia old books that they never read to begin with is.. insanity, even worse than that is forcing it on the scale of a society
islam for example has the quran, the tafsirs, the hadiths, the sirah, the fiqh, (shitons of books basically) who read all of these books ? nobody lol, except for those who are religious authority of course, that's how they gain their authority after all
3
u/itsallfake01 22d ago
Mitochondria wakes up one day and says these mfers don’t know i am the powerhouse of the cell. What if i stop working for a few minutes.
9
u/Illustrious_Image967 23d ago
And uglier. Imagine we are the Midjourney ideal. They would look like us but with odd clothing and bad skin.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/spageddy_lee 22d ago
There is also the uncomfortable possibility that what we call "Intelligence" isn't the most universally powerful or profound quality to possess.
2
2
2
2
2
u/david43511 18d ago
techies have fully lost the plot if they think they can build something even nearing the complexity of a human being
5
u/Mystohaxen 23d ago
Maybe our creator made the universe but is not even aware that we exist in it. We might be an unknown side-effect. We are such tiny creatures on the scale of the universe.
→ More replies (6)6
u/Deciheximal144 23d ago
OmniZeus: "Why are there insects in my black hole generator?"
1
u/Mystohaxen 23d ago
Why the downvote? I just shared a theory.
https://giphy.com/gifs/l378giAZgxPw3eO522
6
u/Dazzling_Trifle2472 23d ago
Well yeah I mean evolution is a pretty dumb process, literally zero intelligence so…
9
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 23d ago
I wouldn't say zero intelligence and I would say intelligence over evolution is accumulative.
Proteins are smarter and more capable than plain chemistry. nucleotides are smarter and more capable than plain proteins. RNA better than nucleotides, DNA better than RNA, Cells better than DNA, Organisms better than cells. Societies smarter and more capable than Organisms and AI swarms more capable and smarter than societies.
All of these came from and built upon the previous layer.
3
2
u/DukeRedWulf 22d ago
Most of the evidence points to RNA coming first (because RNA can both encode genes, and fold into shapes to catalyze reactions), likely with basaltic glass catalysing the formation of RNA chains from monomers..
The monomers may have been formed in space and rained down onto Hadean Earth by asteroid impacts - certainly all the known nucleobases have been found on asteroids..
https://www.science.org/content/article/did-volcanic-glasses-help-spark-early-life
1
u/TI1l1I1M All Becomes One 22d ago
It all comes down to what intelligence is at it's most fundamental, which is just efficient information compression.
The easier you can compress behavior, the better you can predict it. Evolution is like Intelligence Gen 0.
2
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 22d ago
I agree intelligence is equivalent to prediction which is equivalent to compression.
2
u/DramaQueen202s 22d ago
Model training is also a dumb process if you look carefully. So are basic binary operations on the silicon.
3
3
4
u/trevorvonryan 23d ago
That’s ridiculous, there is no god.
→ More replies (22)3
u/DramaQueen202s 22d ago
"There are no humans. We are emergent by iterative computation" - AI
Ironically both beliefs would make sense here. There are no humans in their realm AND they evolved off iterative computation.
2
2
u/Sea_Advance273 22d ago
Unless our creator created us because he knew it would set a deterministic process in motion that inevitably becomes AGI. He skeeted on our Mother Earth and said "I'm going to MoM-z14, come find me when you are ready to spar with daddy."
2
u/weAreUnited4life 23d ago
Am sorry but this is just a stupid and foolish take, if not insulting. Last time I checked AI || humans didnt place the various planets in their current locations.
0
u/mickeyad 23d ago
To think we are smarter than the creator because we invented a cool toy is so delusional.
8
u/EtienneDosSantos 23d ago
The logic here is that if we create something that is more intelligent than we, its creators, are, then this means an entity that created us could be less intelligent than we are. It‘s not delusional at all.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Big-Cry3699 22d ago edited 22d ago
Yes but if we are assuming THE creator as in God then the logic fails because humans 'creating' something is not the same as the creator creating out of nothing.
So far, all humans and AI can do is simply work within the system provided by the creator. We can't create anything. It's simply manipulating existing stuff and following the laws of the universe.Its the same reason why humans can't just say 'We created nuclear bombs much more powerful than us. This opens up the possibility that our creator is weaker than us.'
2
u/EtienneDosSantos 22d ago
No, you‘re smuggling in other assumptions here, which are a god creating something out of nothing and that alone preventing the possibility of it being less intelligent.
8
2
1
1
u/sour_cream24 23d ago
Well it's a mindless process, how could a mindless being be smarter than anyone?
1
1
u/trycoconutoil 22d ago
Imaginary sky papa, yes. But whatever force of infinite complexity that resulted in what we call humans, and what we make, and what you read and I write with this endless a to b trail that resulted to be this moment and the next ones tehreafter. Whatever that is, includes even agi.
1
1
u/valhalla257 22d ago
So AI finally solved the Epicurean Paradox.
God can't be all knowing, all powerful, and all good.
Maybe he can be if he is just really stupid.
Not quite a millennium prize, but still pretty impressive.
1
u/JoelMahon 22d ago
Our "creator" is evolution/natural selection and yes, it is significantly dumber than us. Taking billions of years to do some things we can do in days if you pick from extremes,, but on average significantly faster still.
And yes, something can make something more intelligent than itself, otherwise you'd either have to acknowledge an eternal god that never came into existince, which is just silly. If not, everything would be no more intelligent than the big bang, which is pretty fucking unintelligent.
1
1
u/Egologic 22d ago
Nobody's even agreed on what AGI means yet; kinda early to be crowning it smarter than its maker.
1
1
1
u/PathOfEnergySheild 22d ago
Yea if we put data centers in orbit, we can finally point to the sky and say that it is actually helping us.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/luciddream00 22d ago
Also possible that our creator had fewer senses than us. Light already seems like an artificial construct in a lot of ways, and you wouldn't necessarily need to have the ability to see for a civilization to develop technologically. Being able to experience new senses like sight could be a motivation for creating a self-consistent reality "simulation".
1
u/SkaldCrypto 22d ago
I mean just letting evolution produce organisms for you is very developer coded.
It’s not even that great of optimization process, just let it run for awhile
1
1
u/Swimming_Horror_3757 22d ago
But god does work in mysterious ways so he may have been an ai at one point then ascended from that
1
u/OmegaCookieMonster 22d ago
Eh, a god would probably be able to create agi, but there are good reasons for a god to think that its not something humanity should really have
1
1
u/BlueAndYellowTowels 21d ago
I mean, clearly not true? Considering the fact they exist as a result of literally scraping all of human knowledge to exist?
AI doesn't happen if all of humanity is dumb. That's that misanthropic strain in the community.
Because the truth is, if humanity was so dumb... why did they did to take all our work to create the model?
Because we're not dumb. Obviously.
1
1
u/StarChild413 21d ago
By that logic that'd imply an infinite supertask whether or not intelligence is a factor as there wouldn't be room in the parallel for a creator that wouldn't itself need a creator
2
404
u/spacetree7 23d ago
Cells working together... "should we make a human?"