Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

No gpt doesn't work like that.  I'm saying if a conscience manifested in silicon how would you tell unless it also just happened to be able to interract. Imagine the brain of a 0 day old baby in a coma basically.

[KittyTac]

No gpt doesn't work like that.  I'm saying if a conscience manifested in silicon how would you tell unless it also just happened to be able to interract. Imagine the brain of a 0 day old baby in a coma basically.

I don't worry about that because our current paradigm towards making AIs works, in all cases, similarly to GPT. If it does much later on... honestly, acceptable losses really. Terminating a nascent consciousness is morally equivalent to abortion, and I support abortion rights.

[jipehog]

Does your phone's autocomplete have a train of thought? Why or why not? What if you just type a lot so it has a huge "tree" built up (becomes "smarter")?

This raise an interesting question, how do you define intelligence? What is the difference between us and a very complex machine?

Also to be fair, chatGPT have a better train of thought than I do, it doesn't get hampered by multitasking, interruption, or translation shenanigan etc like we do and I wish I could write as coherently in English as it does without spending a lot of time on it.

---

Also The dark side of artificial intelligence: manipulation of human behaviour a little on what current algorithm are already capable of for those unfamiliar (sorry it is a quick google I don't have a good source in English)

[KittyTac]

I define sapience (intelligence is too nebulous) as having a consistent perception of the world, the ability to learn on the fly, and to have the ability to learn whole new categories of skills. ChatGPT has neither of these.

[McTraveller]

Uhh... you don't get to define what sapience means, that's been done for you 

Sapience literally just means "wise, or appearing wise."  This definition is broad, and you can easily argue that ChatGPT "appears to be wise."

It also has a meaning "relating to humans (as in homo sapiens)", so if you take that more narrow meaning, no AI (or any other species) can ever be sapient, by definition.

Now, I don't think ChatGPT (or similar) is intelligent, nor do I think ChatGPT (or similar) has any agency. This is a critical point - ChatGPT cannot do anything other that generate responses to queries. It cannot, for instance, choose to ignore a request (it may ignore a request due to technical issues, but this isn't a choice).  And perhaps more importantly, ChatGPT doesn't "do" anything when it's not being actively queried.  Put simply, ChatGPT doesn't (can't?) think about things.

[KittyTac]

Ah yes, prescriptivism. I'm using the word as it's generally used in the context of AI or aliens in this kind of discourse. Words' meanings change.

But yes I agree that it doesn't have any real agency. Just a good illusion of it.

[dragdeler]

To me sapience is just an anthropocentric weasel word. Hurts to bad to admit all livings things have some form of conscience when we majoritarily interract with our environment by exploiting it.

The old blabla debate "nOoOo AnImAlS jUsT lEaRn To AsSoCiATe EvEnTs To ReWaRdS tHeY cAnT AsSoCiAtE mEaNiNg" totally unlike every single human in the world

[Starver]

Spoiler: Just my own semi-random blurtings on nothing appropriate to the thread (click to show/hide)

I define sapience (intelligence is too nebulous) as having a consistent perception of the world, the ability to learn on the fly, and to have the ability to learn whole new categories of skills. ChatGPT has neither of these.

Now, to bring back my prior linguistic diversion for a moment, did you intend an Oxford Comma in listing three individual items, and thus meant to say "none of these"? Or was it two items, with an aside to qualify consistency of perception with that of learning ability, and "neither" was the right choice?

Not your problem, not even being a native anglophone[1]. But perfectly highlights why I think OCs are utterly stupid and frequently confusing. Thus endeth the lesson...

[1] Jipehog, I'm not sure whether that applies to your "...chatGPT have a better train...". And of course I make my own errors of typing or editing, even of things I have a very definite idea of what is correct, for which I frequently kick myself... 

[...] And to annoy dragdeler, for what is likely just a simple typo, "[It] Hurts too bad..." stands out a mile. 

[DeKaFu]

The opinion that I've always held is that AI capable of a subjective experience (which is where I'd draw the line between "inert object" and "thing to which having 'rights' is a meaningful concept") might be possible, but there is no path there from this line of technological advancement. If it ever emerges, it will be from the direction of something designed to emulate a very simple (resembling an insect or animal) brain that is iteratively improved upon, much like animal evolution.

The current style being popularized (the chatbot angle) will never get there because it's just.... not even pointed in the right general direction to ever make "thoughts". It simply begins with a goal/outcome that is set from the start ("be good enough at talking to look human to outsiders") and is designed from the ground up to improve upon that and only that. The ultimate "advancement" of this type of AI is it being indistinguishable from talking to a person, but it will still be nothing more than an automated process with no awareness behind it. Having thoughts is not at all required to successfully give the outward appearance of having thoughts.

Essentially, we're well on the path to inventing real, functioning p-zombies and I find it alarming that so many people don't seem to be able to (or care to) make the distinction.

[KittyTac]

To me sapience is just an anthropocentric weasel word. Hurts to bad to admit all livings things have some form of conscience when we majoritarily interract with our environment by exploiting it.

The old blabla debate "nOoOo AnImAlS jUsT lEaRn To AsSoCiATe EvEnTs To ReWaRdS tHeY cAnT AsSoCiAtE mEaNiNg" totally unlike every single human in the world

It is an arbitrary concept but we need to draw a line somewhere.

The opinion that I've always held is that AI capable of a subjective experience (which is where I'd draw the line between "inert object" and "thing to which having 'rights' is a meaningful concept") might be possible, but there is no path there from this line of technological advancement. If it ever emerges, it will be from the direction of something designed to emulate a very simple (resembling an insect or animal) brain that is iteratively improved upon, much like animal evolution.

The current style being popularized (the chatbot angle) will never get there because it's just.... not even pointed in the right general direction to ever make "thoughts". It simply begins with a goal/outcome that is set from the start ("be good enough at talking to look human to outsiders") and is designed from the ground up to improve upon that and only that. The ultimate "advancement" of this type of AI is it being indistinguishable from talking to a person, but it will still be nothing more than an automated process with no awareness behind it. Having thoughts is not at all required to successfully give the outward appearance of having thoughts.

Essentially, we're well on the path to inventing real, functioning p-zombies and I find it alarming that so many people don't seem to be able to (or care to) make the distinction.

This.

[Random_Dragon]

Personally I would hope that it stays that way, where the current line of AI development is mostly just used to make purpose-driven algorithms. It's like with the typical flaw that haunts the premise of every sci-fi setting that grapples with the question of intelligent AI: why would you go through the extra effort required to make them more than just machines, if what you actually needed was a machine?

Though to be fair, most corporations and governments these days have trouble grasping the concept of human rights already, so in practice the only thing keeping this sort of Idiot Plot from happening is that a pile of math ran through several rounds of artificial selection is currently the easiest way to get something that can do intelligent-ish things.

Spoiler: snark (click to show/hide)

And honestly a lot of corporations give the impression that their main motive isn't even profit, short or long term, so much as it is picking whichever action fucks over their customers and employees the most (even when it'd be unprofitable to them), so I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if someday we have enslaved sapient AI developing purely from corporate idiocy.

[dragdeler]

spoiler:snark

That's my vain of cynicism hehehe, it feels like you took the words out of my mouth.


To derail the derail: why do they do that? (mindless antagonism from the deciders) why does it work? I struggle to come up with something that isn't the same kind cynicism, all I have is this tiny paper in my hand that I found in a fortune cookie, it says: "if it's funny because it's true, then the inverse must be just as valid"

Authority was build on a foundation of abuse. From the sword to the feather, and we inherited that. The people who wield the power do not necessarily know why they do what they do, they just continue to do the stuff that works, until it doesn't.

[Duuvian]

Spoiler: Just my own semi-random blurtings on nothing appropriate to the thread (click to show/hide)

I define sapience (intelligence is too nebulous) as having a consistent perception of the world, the ability to learn on the fly, and to have the ability to learn whole new categories of skills. ChatGPT has neither of these.

Now, to bring back my prior linguistic diversion for a moment, did you intend an Oxford Comma in listing three individual items, and thus meant to say "none of these"? Or was it two items, with an aside to qualify consistency of perception with that of learning ability, and "neither" was the right choice?

Not your problem, not even being a native anglophone[1]. But perfectly highlights why I think OCs are utterly stupid and frequently confusing. Thus endeth the lesson...

[1] Jipehog, I'm not sure whether that applies to your "...chatGPT have a better train...". And of course I make my own errors of typing or editing, even of things I have a very definite idea of what is correct, for which I frequently kick myself... 

[...] And to annoy dragdeler, for what is likely just a simple typo, "[It] Hurts too bad..." stands out a mile. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was taught that in addition to pauses in sentences using serial commas is for listing things while a semi-colon is used to break the list or otherwise continue the sentence without the list continued, for example, penguins, polar bears, and seals; but not elephants since the wooly mammoth has died out.

[King Zultan]

So are the balloons still a thing people care about or have they all been popped?

[Random_Dragon]

So are the balloons still a thing people care about or have they all been popped?

Depends. Has chatgpt been installed on one yet?