341–350 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. Is that really why?
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
Please look up what a vegetarian is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a person would lack consciousness, they couldn’t possibly know that though?
I always know that I'm me, the soul staring out at the world through my own eyes. Everybody else? No idea. Maybe they are having the exact same experience as me right now. Maybe they're all golems. Impossible to know. It's something spiritual, something that I just choose to believe in. I don't find it difficult to believe the same for AIs.
You’re an intelligent mammal, your biological makeup encoded in DNA. So are all other people, who largely share that same DNA. You’re conscious. It’s not a big leap to conclude that so are other people, too.
This kind of solipsistic sophistry is not productive. It might be entertaining if you’re contemplating the underpinnings of epistemology for the first time in your life, but it’s not an honest contribution to the debate.
You might as well claim that you have no idea if gravity will be in effect tomorrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> look like It "looks like" they have emotions because they have the same conscious experiences and emotions for the same evolutionary reasons as humans, who are their cousins on the tree of life. The reason a lot of "animal cruelty" is not banned is the same as for why slavery was not banned for centuries even though it "looked like" the enslaved classes have the same desires and experiences as other humans—humans c…
The best test for consciousness is “can it be turned off” … ie sleep. Mammals, birds, fish sleep, ergo they are conscious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we don't ban plant cruelty or insect cruelty or fish cruelty. For example fish is treated way worse than meat animals and vegetarians still happily eat fish.
This does not sound like any of the several vegetarians I know. Is it a cultural difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Humans must not anthropomorphise AI systems. That is, humans must not attribute emotions, intentions or moral agency to them. Anthropomorphism distorts judgement. In extreme cases, anthropomorphising can lead to emotional dependence. Still angry about this. The reason humans ban animal cruelty is that animals look like they have emotions humans can relate to. LLMs are even better than animals at this. If you aren't…
> look like It "looks like" they have emotions because they have the same conscious experiences and emotions for the same evolutionary reasons as humans, who are their cousins on the tree of life. The reason a lot of "animal cruelty" is not banned is the same as for why slavery was not banned for centuries even though it "looked like" the enslaved classes have the same desires and experiences as other humans—humans c…
In Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s terms, humans must resist the reinscription of colonial paternalism through uncritical anthropomorphism of AI systems.
However, I think we should follow “do not anthropomorphise” by acknowledging that while LLMs have quite some reasoning skills, and might resemble some level of intent depending on what’s in their context, they don’t have “understanding” like humans do.
They are absurdly good, statistical next-token-predictors. Keeping that in mind is really helpful for coding, learning, advice, conversation or whatever else you use them for.
Anthropomorphising LLMs is inevitable, but we should do it somehow responsibly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>delusional and literally evidence of psychosis to suggest that computer software is doing something it is not programmed to do These are just insults and outright lies, and you know that. We're done here. AI progress from here on out will be extra sweet.
You don't have the ability to predict progress, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always know that I'm me, the soul staring out at the world through my own eyes. Everybody else? No idea. Maybe they are having the exact same experience as me right now. Maybe they're all golems. Impossible to know. It's something spiritual, something that I just choose to believe in. I don't find it difficult to believe the same for AIs.
No idea? Really? You’re an intelligent mammal, your biological makeup encoded in DNA. So are all other people, who largely share that same DNA. You’re conscious. It’s not a big leap to conclude that so are other people, too. This kind of solipsistic sophistry is not productive. It might be entertaining if you’re contemplating the underpinnings of epistemology for the first time in your life, but it’s not an honest co…
We seem to agree. Not a big leap, but a leap nonetheless.