Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards • Hacker News Board

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#391

Post by b112 » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 11:35 PM UTC

cwmoore wrote: post #379

b112 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response doesn't make a lot of sense, are you able to actually state your point? Doing a search and replace as you suggest, doesn't actually create anything that makes sense.

Try this then: > that never works Citation needed.

Ah. An entirely different response, having nothing to do with whatever that 'mine,' business was.

It's exceptionally simple. Endless countries around the world have given 'baby bonuses' and 'child dividends' to parents. Money has been thrown at the problem. In many cases, when such programs run, it's profitable to have children. And there's no study needed, as it is a simple fact. And yet? The birth rate keeps dropping across the entire world. As in, every single country across the entire world.

You already started with a weird, what seems like perhaps snide response, where you (I guess?) read my comment and misunderstand it. Now, you're just throwing something else.

How about, you engage in thoughtful consideration of what I'm saying.

It's a very serious problem.

We're talking about the extinction of the entire human race.

And it's not a result of money. It's not. And it's very, very important to not just say "Well it seems like it's money for me, so who cares, it's money".

Because this is a bigger threat than global warming, than nuclear war, then a meteor impact. In such cases, humans would survive. But if we just end up unable to have offspring?

Well. Game over.

We cannot risk just presuming.

See here, in this very same thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479324

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#392

Post by slopinthebag » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 12:31 AM UTC

mannykannot wrote: post #381

slopinthebag wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the reply. And I didn't mean to quote you out of context. The reason I brought up the enigma machine's hardware is to illustrate there is a difference between the physical machine and the abstract program that it can be observed to implement. However the machine can be used for more than that, for example I could use it as a footrest, or I could dissemble it's parts and use it to build a bomb. I could simu…

I think there is an important distinction here that you are missing. The principle that a simulation is not the thing being simulated is true in general, but it cannot be used to justify the claim that there can be no equivalences between a simulation and the thing being simulated. Indeed, if this were the case, then the word 'simulation' would have no meaning, as it is precisely the existence of some equivalences th…

Ok I was implicitly including the mind as part of the brain. Absent a mind, I think we're just talking past each other. I don't see a reason why a brain absent a mind could not be simulated.

And of course I have nothing really novel to add to the arguments against a mind arising from a simulation, and I'm sure you're familiar with all the common ones.

However this is more interesting

" ‘…a bit pattern in computer memory [only] means “pain” because of how a program and its users interpret or employ it.’ This is somewhat begging the question, in that it tacitly presupposes that the system itself is incapable of interpreting it, but if the formation of this bit-pattern has certain consequences, such as the system saying it is in pain, redirecting its attention to finding any means to eliminate it while avoiding anything tending to exacerbate it, and forming memories which will have the consequence that the system will, from now on, try to avoid circumstances likely to cause its recurrence, then on what basis would you reject its own claims of being in pain?"

Are you claiming that the specific bit formations here indicate the presence of a mind?

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#393

Post by folkrav » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 1:25 AM UTC

hadlock wrote: post #167

arionhardison wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hit me hard, I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm not sure it's what makes "us human" its what makes humans (us) better than other species. It was intelligence, this was used to create distinction between us and other living beings, different races etc... Now its kind of gone; in some ways. Loss of meaning, purpose, place etc... The one thing we used as a ranking metric is now a commodity, so....? I…

It might be time to take a sabbatical

To come back to what?

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#394

Post by Animats » Sun, Aug 30, 2026, 8:00 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #391

cwmoore wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try this then: > that never works Citation needed.

Ah. An entirely different response, having nothing to do with whatever that 'mine,' business was. It's exceptionally simple. Endless countries around the world have given 'baby bonuses' and 'child dividends' to parents. Money has been thrown at the problem. In many cases, when such programs run, it's profitable to have children. And there's no study needed, as it is a simple fact. And yet? The birth rate keeps droppi…

> But if we just end up unable to have offspring?

Just not having enough offspring means humans fade out. Breakeven is about 2.1 children per female.

We're already on that path. It's not a projection. "Peak Baby", the year with the most births, was 2012. Elementary schools have been closing for years now.