221–230 of 291 posts
Surely it can only be fake. How can it be legal? But seeing so many people from the hacker news community reacting to it as normal or exiting is troubling. This is obviously breaching the limits of ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is creepy, I agree. I saw this article over the weekend and felt similarly: https://theinnermostloop.substack.com/p/the-first-multi-beha... > Watch the video closely. What you are seeing is not an animation. It is not a reinforcement learning policy mimicking biology. It is a copy of a biological brain, wired neuron-to-neuron from electron microscopy data, running in simulation, making a body move. And the simulat…
It's 200k neurons. Less than an ant has. Somewhat creepy, but if you're imagining that this thing is conscious and knows that it's in doom... yeah definitely not. Still I don't understand why they would invite the extra creepy factor of using human brain cells rather than e.g. mouse brain cells. Surely it makes no difference biologically but it's going to lead to fewer comments like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's legitimately horrifying to me. Would you feel any differently if a product from this tech used the user's own neurons grown from their stem cells?
No. We don't understand our own sentience. I don't know how we can be so confident as to not think it can evolve here using literal human neurons that can learn to take input signals and send output signals. I don't think this 200,000 neuron array is sentient. But I also don't think we can define the line where that may happen. I assume this company will scale. How far, and to what extent?
As such, how can we build moral incentives around any of these things?
We must understand something about them, and what you seem to 'know' is that sentience is a thing (that exist), and it arises from the human mind - I don't think this is anymore proven than any of the other red-herring counterexample concepts I gave.
Or to summarise/TLDR - Sentience? It doesn't exist, it's a desperate attempt to maintain the human-centric concept of the soul, stripped of religious tones to appear more legitimate. If you disagree, prove otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 200k neurons. Less than an ant has. Somewhat creepy, but if you're imagining that this thing is conscious and knows that it's in doom... yeah definitely not. Still I don't understand why they would invite the extra creepy factor of using human brain cells rather than e.g. mouse brain cells. Surely it makes no difference biologically but it's going to lead to fewer comments like this.
You are confusing intelligence with consciousness (qualia). We simply don't know how qualia develops or how to measure it. We cannot discard, for example, than an ant has a greater qualia level than us. There are theories about qualia being connected to microtubules on neurons and quantum effects... the DOOM-playing neurons also have those microtubules. So you cannot say "definitely not".
I've never heard the word qualia used as a synonym for consciousness, only as a related but distinct concept.
> an ant has a greater qualia level than us
What? where does this come from?
Surely it can only be fake. How can it be legal? But seeing so many people from the hacker news community reacting to it as normal or exiting is troubling. This is obviously breaching the limits of ethics.
It's a group of cells on a plate? What is there here that would be illegal? This isn't any different than growing some rat intestinal lining cells in a petri dish.
Surely it can only be fake. How can it be legal? But seeing so many people from the hacker news community reacting to it as normal or exiting is troubling. This is obviously breaching the limits of ethics.
It's a group of cells on a plate? What is there here that would be illegal? This isn't any different than growing some rat intestinal lining cells in a petri dish.
Interesting symbolic angle: as LLMs plateau and are more and more ineffectual at replicating real intelligence, perhaps this is an attempt to keep the sci-fi mythos alive from the other direction: "Computers can't seem to create a mind, but the physical part of a mind creating a computer is basically the same thing, right?"
If this can be taken at face value... it's creepy. I get that they're doing it for the meme. But perhaps something getting close to human intelligence, made out of human cells, shouldn't be forced to play a violent video game without any alternative options? Does 'the meme' justify that? I dunno. Nothing against violent games myself. Just feels like it's starting to get quite questionable, ethically speaking.
Yeah, people get shot/stabbed/"fall off a building by accident" every day and we should be considerate of the feelings of a petri dish.
Are discussion about petri dishes diverting relevant resources away from building safety initiatives?
Can I be allowed to torture small animals so long as human suffering persists?