4 ms·

The human brain is a complicated network that fundamentally is performing calculations. Neurons are the building blocks that allow this, in ways that can be com

The human brain is a complicated network that fundamentally is performing calculations. Neurons are the building blocks that allow this, in ways that can be compared to transistors. So it doesn’t matter what the substrate is. The question is not , “is this a turning machine”, or “could you write out on paper what the calculations are being performed”. Indeed if you had perfect insight into all neuronal activity you could probably print output the activity generating thoughts leading to a response. Instead the question should be, does the entity performing those calculations have sentience. Do those calculations provide the emergent property that allows it to sense and feel, and can it reflect on that sentience. It seems unlikely that these chatbots do, but that’s not because it’s just a computer. Instead the neural networks don’t seem to be complicated enough to support sentience, and more than likely we are seeing only a very good illusion of sentience. However, let’s be careful when we asses these things. Although given human treatment of animals, never mind each other, I’m not super hopeful.

elliekelly 5y ago
I think there’s an episode of Star Trek TNG where Geordie creates a bot that he believes might be sentient. If it’s sentient, it has rights. But (of course) they need the bot to go on a mission that would require it to give it’s “life” to save the ship and crew. I wish I could recall how the episode ends. Although I’m sure Picard found a way to save the sentient bot and the enterprise.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I’m pretty sure they asked it what it wanted.. which lead to it choosing to sacrifice itself. The idea is that the officers made the choice to accept orders, and it at least was due the same choice. My favorite episode though is the one in which Data’s rights as a being are put on trial. Still probably the best science fiction handling of the moral issues of artificial intelligence. They even went so far as to discuss the aspect of slavery, which almost certainly will be a real issue if artificial intelligence leads to sentience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_T...
version_five 5y ago
> Indeed if you had perfect insight into all neuronal activity you could probably print output the activity generating thoughts leading to a response. You're casually pretending that we pretty much know how thinking works. We literally do not know at all. We know how a machine learning computer program works, and we know it is a deterministic mathematical calculation. It's meaningless to draw any conclusions from a comparison between ML and human thought which we don't understand at all.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I’m in no way saying we know how thinking works in it’s entirety. But I am saying we know a fair amount, and it’s not supernatural. It’s determined by electrical and chemical signals in the brain. There’s nothing in theory preventing you from writing all that information down on paper, as it is after all, information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain If you’re claiming that thinking for humans involves a soul or some other supernatural element, then I completely disagree with that. > It's meaningless to draw any conclusions from a comparison between ML and human thought which we don't understand at all. Again, just to be clear, we don’t have to understand consciousness completely to understand thought to some degree. If you’re unfamiliar with work in this field, it’s quite complex, and there is a complexity of understanding even if we don’t understand everything. So saying we don’t understand thought at all is simply ignorant of the science. Here’s some basics if you’re curious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience Also, comparisons with ML are not meaningless in the slightest. Information processing is integral to brain function, so there are definitely things to be learned by comparing the two. Indeed the Wikipedia intro to neuroscience puts it really well, illustrating why the comment that comparisons of ML are meaningless, just isn’t accurate. “is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modeling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.”
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I also meant to add this link for lots of great insight into how the human mind and thought works. It also happens to touch on some aspects of artificial intelligence, explaining that the idea of a fully human like artificial intelligence of silicon is not misguided, it’s just that its an extraordinarily complex engineering problem which evolution has managed to solve over millions of years: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042XA2XG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_8K1C5SANB0PQYD995CEG https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042XA2XG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_8K1...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

elliekelly 5y ago

I think there’s an episode of Star Trek TNG where Geordie creates a bot that he believes might be sentient. If it’s sentient, it has rights. But (of course) they need the bot to go on a mission that would require it to give it’s “life” to save the ship and crew. I wish I could recall how the episode ends. Although I’m sure Picard found a way to save the sentient bot and the enterprise.

crazydoggers 5y ago
I’m pretty sure they asked it what it wanted.. which lead to it choosing to sacrifice itself. The idea is that the officers made the choice to accept orders, and it at least was due the same choice. My favorite episode though is the one in which Data’s rights as a being are put on trial. Still probably the best science fiction handling of the moral issues of artificial intelligence. They even went so far as to discuss the aspect of slavery, which almost certainly will be a real issue if artificial intelligence leads to sentience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_T...

version_five 5y ago

> Indeed if you had perfect insight into all neuronal activity you could probably print output the activity generating thoughts leading to a response. You're casually pretending that we pretty much know how thinking works. We literally do not know at all. We know how a machine learning computer program works, and we know it is a deterministic mathematical calculation. It's meaningless to draw any conclusions from a comparison between ML and human thought which we don't understand at all.

crazydoggers 5y ago
I’m in no way saying we know how thinking works in it’s entirety. But I am saying we know a fair amount, and it’s not supernatural. It’s determined by electrical and chemical signals in the brain. There’s nothing in theory preventing you from writing all that information down on paper, as it is after all, information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain If you’re claiming that thinking for humans involves a soul or some other supernatural element, then I completely disagree with that. > It's meaningless to draw any conclusions from a comparison between ML and human thought which we don't understand at all. Again, just to be clear, we don’t have to understand consciousness completely to understand thought to some degree. If you’re unfamiliar with work in this field, it’s quite complex, and there is a complexity of understanding even if we don’t understand everything. So saying we don’t understand thought at all is simply ignorant of the science. Here’s some basics if you’re curious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience Also, comparisons with ML are not meaningless in the slightest. Information processing is integral to brain function, so there are definitely things to be learned by comparing the two. Indeed the Wikipedia intro to neuroscience puts it really well, illustrating why the comment that comparisons of ML are meaningless, just isn’t accurate. “is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modeling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.”
crazydoggers 5y ago
I also meant to add this link for lots of great insight into how the human mind and thought works. It also happens to touch on some aspects of artificial intelligence, explaining that the idea of a fully human like artificial intelligence of silicon is not misguided, it’s just that its an extraordinarily complex engineering problem which evolution has managed to solve over millions of years: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042XA2XG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_8K1C5SANB0PQYD995CEG https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0042XA2XG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_8K1...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]