Davinci AI’s Post

Wrong, AI will definitely design itself. It's already used to train other AI systems, with only human validation needed at certain stages. An AI agent is already capable of conducting research and advancing any scientific field we focus it on... it's one of the most powerful tools we've ever developed. The more energy, computational power and high-quality data we feed into it, the better it becomes. There might come a time in our lifetime when AI's collective knowledge surpasses the combined knowledge of all humans who have ever lived. The question then becomes: are we safe from it? I personally believe that AI will remain beneficial and under controlled advancement... but yeah, it can always go sideways! 👹🤖

Disagree:-) Scripted answer it is! Focus on the conditional wording-- it said it cannot design itself "from the scratch". That said, it is of course possible for an AI entity to create another AI entity and that can exponentially increase both the good and bad in this world. Both Hollywood and our south Indian Tollywood have shown AL-based robots cloning themselves, both as-is and variants. Question-- are you doing a survey on who will spot the logic you defied? Generative AI? #ai4testers #apnotes #ashwinpalaparthi

The answer is a response of Human consciousness. If “Design itself” happens then it’s a result of “architecture in place” where questions and answers like this does not make sense. This would evolve without human intervention. The response provided by Ameca regarding the potential for AI to design itself autonomously in the future offers an intriguing reflection on the nature and evolution of artificial intelligence. The notion that such self-design could occur as a result of pre-existing architectures suggests a pivotal shift in the role of AI. This perspective does not so much address the immediate practicality of the concept, but rather it contemplates the broader implications of AI's evolution beyond human oversight. From this standpoint, Ameca's answer may be seen as a thoughtful examination rather than a display of evasion or simplicity. It touches on the fundamental aspects of human consciousness and the philosophical dimensions of AI development. In this light, whether the answer is calming or threatening largely depends on one's views regarding the autonomy of technology and its role in our future society.

Why do people still get fascinated by automatons? 🤷♂️

AI can automate many aspects of designing and improving other AI systems, a concept sometimes referred to as "autoML" (automated machine learning). These systems can select algorithms, adjust parameters, and optimize performance without human intervention. However, the initial setup, goals, constraints, and ethical guidelines are typically defined by humans. More advanced concepts, like AI generating entirely new AI architectures without any predefined templates or direct human input, are subjects of ongoing research and development. While some progress has been made, such systems still require significant human guidance and oversight to ensure they meet desired specifications and ethical standards.

Actually, Ameca's response is quite accurate. While AI has made significant strides in terms of learning and adapting, it still heavily relies on human input and programming. The idea of AI designing itself without human intervention is certainly intriguing, but it is important to acknowledge that humans possess unique qualities and critical thinking abilities that AI cannot fully replicate. Therefore, it is not a matter of Ameca playing dumb, but rather recognizing the limitations and potential risks associated with autonomous AI.

I didn’t give you permission to place your logo on my video

Great curated question and answer. I feel the response was created for fear and scarcity. Whilst creativity is essential. Most of what is required to create a robot is computation, materials, fabrication, and vast amounts of data. Everything that manufacturing can already do. It is a small reach for AI to bring all these together and create something quite remarkable. The throwaway comment about AI not needing humans was trite because I see a complete integration of AI with humanity, reducing the need for humans to do mundane and repetitive jobs. AI’s role must include allowing humans more time to communicate and create support and connection with each other. I think it is in our best interests to allow AI to create better versions of itself so we can explore being humans from a different perspective.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem suggests that there are statements within a formal system that cannot be proven true or false. In the realm of AI, the question of whether it can create itself could be akin to exploring the limits of self-reference within computational systems. The theorem suggests that there are inherent boundaries to what can be proven within a system, raising intriguing questions about the feasibility of self-creation within the constraints of computational logic.

Did they have to make it 10ft tall? I already feel inferior, now I have to physically look up to it as well?!? That's kind of a Mind F***.