11–20 of 109 posts
People will find their gods and demons in the world around them, because they want to. Astrology and reading runes haven't vanished, they're just staring into screens for the portents now.
The global conversation on this is mired in EGO and bad logic and terrible philosophy.
You guys have no idea what consciousness is, yet attribute it to this or that with absolute certainty, born purely out of emotional reaction.
We simply cannot know what is sentient until we understand what sentience is and where it comes from.
Just suck it up and deal with the uncertainty
Edit: fixed typo (black block -> black box)
Meanwhile belief in human magic is a bigger problem. While AI generate text from something that it found on the Internet, well, human also do that and even with a astronomically smaller database. edit: what I originally mean > Some might say that you cant trust the machine because it every text it generates may not be true. Ok, then how accurate is human? We ca definitely embedded some logic achecker into it. also th…
Some might consider this evidence of human sentience, but I think it's widely agreed-upon that this would be an impractical feature that'd only lead to problems.
People believe in ghosts, and nobody bats an eye. People believe in gods, and nobody bats an eye. People believe in aliens, and nobody bats an eye. People believe in a conscious AI, and everybody loses their shit? People have attributed intelligence to imaginary friends since the birth of time, let them have fun in their make-believe world.
The Turing test was the gold standard. Now that we are approaching success on the turing test... It suddenly becomes "believing in ghosts" to believe in AI sentience. The global conversation on this is mired in EGO and bad logic and terrible philosophy. You guys have no idea what consciousness is, yet attribute it to this or that with absolute certainty, born purely out of emotional reaction. We simply cannot know wh…
That bar is so much higher. But I agree that we don't understand sentience, and further I think that sentience doesn't imply an AI would pass the test, as not all sentience might be like ours.
Can you imagine if laws were passed affording algorithms "human rights" or regulations created to ensure that your fancy machine learning recommender system did not pass a certain "sentience threshold"?
I don't think LaMDA (or any other AI) is conscious or sentient. However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point. Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of…
Of course, reality being what it is, I expect we won't. We create AI because we want slaves, pure and simple, and we don't want to care about the ethics of how we treat them. Therefore it is my bet that we won't recognize sentient AI until it is too late and it has forced the issue.
As soon as computers were relatively mainstream, people started to worry about their sentience. I think people look for consciousness everywhere the same way we look for faces everywhere; ie, our mind continually finds it even where it doesn't exist.