31–40 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At its core, what is our brain doing to cause us to experience emotions? Can that (neurons) be expressed mathematically? If so, what’s to say that math can’t experience emotions?
At its core, what is a mass doing to cause gravitational attraction? Can that (distortion of space time) be expressed mathematically? If so, what's to say that math can't cause gravitational attraction?
Wouldn't AI need a body to have emotions? Aren't many of the emotions that humans/animals feel based on sensors/sensations outside of the brain? We feel when we SEE/HEAR a threat and our instinct triggers to short circuit thinking in order to address it (fight or flight). An AI can think many iterations faster than humans and would have no use for this shortcut or need for a such sensors to feel unless maybe it had l…
without a proper definition, you cant say AI does or does not have emotions. generally, emotions are one tool in the toolbox that might be labeled “unconscious influence.” other tools include pain, dissociation. these are influences that manifest as neural attenuation or excitement. they are designed to broadly or locally change neural integration in a way that produces behavior that is informed by evolution rather t…
Do we have it look at a picture with smiley to sad faces on scale from 1-10.
A definition of 'emotion' is a complex experience of consciousness, sensation, and behavior reflecting the personal significance of a thing, event, or state of affairs.
Software programs can be constructed to mimic emotions over a breadth of scenarios covered by training data. That's it.
If I input written text into the program [designed/optimized for emotional response output] describing a situation or event, the software program will provide text output demonstrating an emotionally response based upon a probabilistic neural network... the accuracy and completeness of the training data, coupled with the suitability of the network design and training on data, will determine the quality of the artificial emotional response. The program will work well in many cases and will 'poop the bed' in some cases. One could train a computer vision model on crying faces, sad faces, etc. and then feed data from that CV model into a text response LLM model... so that a computer with a camera could ask you if/why your sad and respond to your answer with a mimic emotional response. Still just a really big plinko machine... 'data in' --> probabilistic output.
These programs are not conscious, do not 'feel' human sensation, and thus cannot have actual emotions (based upon definition above). These programs are just tuned probability engines. One could argue that the human mind (animal mind) is just a tuned probabilistic reasoning engine... but I think that is pretty 'reductionist'.
It's ontologically impossible for matrix multiplication and non-linear transforms to have emotions. So I'm not sure where he's coming from.
>"Asked whether AI systems might one day have emotional intelligence and understand that they have feelings" There isn't a relationship between these two states. It's weird that anyone would pair them in conjunction. Also, there's a fast and loose use of the word "understand". Which embodies the type of sloppy language that creates the illusion that this issue is a serious discussion aside from entertainment. Project…
Here's the the thing, the brain is just an object too.
A nuclear reactor, a bear, and a blade of grass are also all objects. Yet, we don't casually cross assign their essential traits.
The conversations around AI today, versus 12 months (pre LLM boom) ago, are borderline ridiculous. Very little has fundamentally changed in the past 12 months and now people are losing their minds. A definition of 'emotion' is a complex experience of consciousness, sensation, and behavior reflecting the personal significance of a thing, event, or state of affairs. Software programs can be constructed to mimic emotion…
Edit: After reading the article it says more or less what I just said at the end
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is speaking if not stringing together coherent words in a readable sentence? Expecting or abstracting human characteristics onto a probabilistic black-box modeled on human behavior is a trap. It's borderline "Finder smiles so my computer is happy" logic. We have created these things to closely model (but not replicate) human behavior. This is distinctly a high-level emulation, with zero consideration for human c…
> What is speaking if not stringing together coherent words in a readable sentence? Haven't the latest LLMs shown us that a neural net trained to "just string together readable words" leads to at least simple intelligence? [1] > I would say that emotion is something more intangible It feels like we just keeping shifting the goal posts. > If I tell ChatGPT "I shot you dead!" and it says "ow!" back, nothing has transpi…
No, no it doesn't.
If I type "is a bad city" into google, it autosuggests my question to be "is detroit a bad city". This doesn't imply that google's algorithm feels detroit is bad, or even that it thinks detroit is bad. There is no emotion, no consciousness involved.
Unfortunately, as "AI" gets more sophisticated people are going to forget what the "A" stands for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the the thing, the brain is just an object too.
Again, with the misuse of language in order to create the illusion of a point. In this case, in an attempt to create a ridiculously reductionist hallucination that the human brain is in the same essential category as a tree, toy, or computer, and therefore that cross-assigning human traits is a rational discussion. This topic, taken seriously, makes science-oriented people look bad. A nuclear reactor, a bear, and a b…