Sora could ruin peoples lives • Hacker News Board

Re: Sora could ruin peoples lives

#181

Post by raindeer2 » Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 7:56 AM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #180

raindeer2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you really claim that modeling "pain" as some kind of variable in an algorithm can be equivalent to a biological being feeling pain? Yes, I do. I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think the hard problem of consciousness is actually a problem or not. I doubt it is, but it is a totally respectable position if you do :) > Where exactly in the cited paper is the claim that emotions are a belief? Can'…

> whether or not you think the hard problem of consciousness is actually a problem or not Depends on what constitutes a "problem" in this context. But based on my interpretation of what you probably want to express with this sentence, yes, I think consciousness is a problem (for your theory). Otherwise, all of my previous comments wouldn't have made that much sense. > Predictions are usually beliefs about the future.…

> I could imagine that in reality all of that isn't needed. Whether the algorithm really feels something or not - it doesn't matter as long as the expression is realistic enough for humans to believe that it feels something. Then you get the consciousness "injected" into your algorithm from the outside. Can you convince someone with a realistic sophisticated simulation that something is conscious even though it isn't? Probably. Still, it won't get you anywhere.

The thing is that I can't prove that you or anyone else is conscious either, including myself. With conscious acting AIs it will be the same, and these AIs will believe they are conscious in the same way as we do. So yes, we will have to treat them as if they are conscious.

Re: Sora could ruin peoples lives

#182

Post by starbugs » Wed, Feb 21, 2024, 9:21 AM UTC

raindeer2 wrote: post #181

starbugs wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether or not you think the hard problem of consciousness is actually a problem or not Depends on what constitutes a "problem" in this context. But based on my interpretation of what you probably want to express with this sentence, yes, I think consciousness is a problem (for your theory). Otherwise, all of my previous comments wouldn't have made that much sense. > Predictions are usually beliefs about the future.…

> I could imagine that in reality all of that isn't needed. Whether the algorithm really feels something or not - it doesn't matter as long as the expression is realistic enough for humans to believe that it feels something. Then you get the consciousness "injected" into your algorithm from the outside. Can you convince someone with a realistic sophisticated simulation that something is conscious even though it isn't…

> The thing is that I can't prove that you or anyone else is conscious either, including myself. With conscious acting AIs it will be the same, and these AIs will believe they are conscious in the same way as we do. So yes, we will have to treat them as if they are conscious.

See, that's the thing. It sounds extremely entitled to say that "you believe you are conscious" (but in reality you aren't). You don't know that. You have no evidence for it. You believe that we believe we are conscious. Your opinion is acceptable to me as long as you keep it limited to your own being and discuss it as an explicit hypothesis. I find it overreaching to put this as a general claim and make it sound as if it was obvious, self evident, and applicable to anyone else. It's not.

Re: Sora could ruin peoples lives

#183

Post by satisfice » Thu, Feb 22, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

skydhash wrote: post #161

jdiff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I rarely see addressed. AI proponents always fall back to "it's just a new tool, just like all the old new tools that made things easier" but all the old new tools only opened up more degrees of freedom by automating away tedium. So much generative AI automates away the creativity leaving only the tedium, and leaving limited ways to even create. If I have a vision, I cannot pull that out of my head…

And that's why I can't enjoy generated content over something produce by an human. More often than not, a human has an agency and something novel to bring into the domain space. But AI has always been about what's common to everything it knows. Humans expand, AI reduces.

Damn straight.

Re: Sora could ruin peoples lives

#184

Post by bamboozled » Fri, Feb 23, 2024, 3:10 AM UTC

seoulmetro wrote: post #142

DalasNoin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of a general response, but I disagree. AI is not just like any other past technology. Just two ways in which it is totally different from the steam engine: AI is able to make art, it can learn from people and then produce similar results. It can imitate art that is the result of our deepest internal processes. Also, AI is about replacing all human jobs and capabilities. Not just a super narrow subset.

You think making art is more important than making the very foundations of the world we live in autonomous is? How can you even reason that. Imagine an army of people with AI art makers versing an army of people with steam engines... who do you think will change the world? AI is nothing compared to the industrial revolution.

I think we could say AI is part of the revolution ?

Re: Sora could ruin peoples lives

#185

Post by sebastiennight » Fri, Feb 23, 2024, 8:58 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #136

scandox wrote: post #29

I think what a lot of the answers gloss over is that the period of adjustment to the new technology often does pull the rug from under people who have invested a good deal of time and attention becoming skilled at something. Our lives are of limited length therefore the concern for a generation of people is real and shouldn't be just treated as a detail of history. Equally in many areas the end result is a loss of so…

One thing about many of those past mechanical inventions is that even though they eliminated a lot of manual labor jobs in some fields, they probably created a lot of manual labors jobs to make the machines or obtain the resources to make the machines. So you might lose your manual labor farm job to a newly invented machine, but there will be a lot of openings for factory workers to assemble those machines and miners…

I wonder how true that is.

It used to be that 90%+ of citizens were employed in agriculture.

Your hypothesis is that we switched from replacing all those farmers with "even more" factory workers building farming machines.

This seems like an extraordinary claim. If one tractor replaces 10 farmers, why would you need 10 workers, full-time, to build this one tractor?

It seems much more likely that the slow disappearance of all those farming "jobs" was, kind-of coincidentally, timed with the need for building cars, clothing factories etc.