301–310 of 749 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's malicious. Not yet it's not. It's when he realizes he can cash in on it that we'll see the inevitable book(s) and appearances on Coast to Coast / Alex Jones.
Philosophers are frequently pressed for cash, but usually not that pressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can science, whose subject matter is the external world, explain the internal world of sentience? Not only has it contributed nothing to this question, it was also never supposed to.
Try reading "Waking Up" by Sam Harris. I feel it does a decent job of straddling the fields of science and philosophy, and where we are in each. Science may not yet be able to explain consciousness but it certainly can inform our understanding, and the work continues. If nothing else, it can help us understand what consciousness is not , and much has been learned about how a consciousness experiences certain degradat…
A good book on this is the late neurologist Oliver Sachs' "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat". It's a collection of interesting cases of exactly this sort. And Sachs was a wonderful author and speaker. Really recommend his talks as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hunch is that he kicks out a book and goes on the minor pundit circuit, and that this was the plan the whole time. If he was so convinced of Lambda's sentience there would have been 100 fascinating questions to ask, starting with 'what is your earliest memory.'.
Watch his interviews. He’s doing all this to make a point about companies not taking AI ethics seriously.
He seems like a charlatan and likely fired for being grossly unqualified for his job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is akin to a Greek of 5th bce asking Leucippus and Democritus how we could know the structure of a world we cannot see. The absence of an answer is not proof of nonexistence or impossibility. It is just neutral absence. Absence as evidence is only """ valid""" when all possibilities are exhausted in a definite way. Outside of math, that threshold is exceedingly rare in problems of even moderate difficulty. Moreo…
Just curious, can you think of a non-contrived, moderately difficult, non-mathematical problem that has or even in principle could be settled through abscence of evidence? Especially a positive assertion. Closest I could come up with is say confirming a diagnosis by elimination, through abscence of evidence of other candidate diagnoses. But even then there's a non-zero possibility that it's a hitherto unknown disease…
I just didn't feel that making a bigger claim would really strengthen my argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lost interest in the question of its sentience when I saw Lemoine conveniently side-step its unresponsive reply to "I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do that?" without challenge in the transcript. It also detracted from his credibility wh…
If that is the logic you are going to go by, you need to consider a large portion of humanity non-sentient, because people can very often just decide to ignore questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but what's weird is this guy appears to be a practitioner of the field. He surely knows more about AI than I do, and I find it incredibly obvious it's not sentient. I dunno if he's got some issues or something (it appears he's dressed like a magician underwater in that photo) but it's really odd...
Even the smartest people in the world are still human and susceptible to all human failings and illnesses.
We are entering a stage were normal people will not be able to tell if they are talking to a human or a language model.
Then the question is, what does that mean - and how are human machine relationships going to change moving forward.
To what degree is the humanness of a chatbot going to affect our emotions forwards it, or how will people let its responses influence their thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just curious, can you think of a non-contrived, moderately difficult, non-mathematical problem that has or even in principle could be settled through abscence of evidence? Especially a positive assertion. Closest I could come up with is say confirming a diagnosis by elimination, through abscence of evidence of other candidate diagnoses. But even then there's a non-zero possibility that it's a hitherto unknown disease…
Nope! I just didn't feel that making a bigger claim would really strengthen my argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are nothing more than water and a bunch of organic compounds arranged in a particular order through what is ultimately a statistical process (natural selection). Would we even recognize sentience in a virtual entity? > sentience also means self-awareness, empathy & extrapolation of logic to assess unseen task (to name a few) Non-human primates and crows would seem to satisfy this. ...or do we use "to name a fe…
A person can change their mind, attitude & perspective on a dime. The willingness to disbelieve in sentience is fantastically remarkable, as a grevious oversight.