3 ms·

Well, on the other hand I also roll my eyes pretty hard whenever I see a post that pretends that subjective experience is some esoteric concept. The question i

Well, on the other hand I also roll my eyes pretty hard whenever I see a post that pretends that subjective experience is some esoteric concept. The question is simply "Will robots feel just like you do, or will they merely be pretending?" - it's something any child could understand. Answers could be something like "No, because they lack X", "Yes, but only those that have X" or "Yes, everything does (panpsychism)". Do you care about potential AI suffering? If you care about animal suffering, the answer to the question would have pretty obvious and major ethical implications. Now, I'm not convinced that humans can ever determine an answer, so I can understand thinking it's just navel gazing, but I imagine the same applies to knowing what happened before the big bang. I think it's quite evident that this doesn't mean either question is malformed.

bseidensticker 4y ago
I can't be sure that other people feel in the same way that I do. I assume they do because they act like it and so I go along with it. If I can't be 100% sure that people feel in the same way that I do, then asking that same question for robots is totally pointless.
- ImprobableTruth 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure your rationale is more complex than that, you probably also account for things like "how similar are they to me?". After all, you wouldn't believe a video game character if they told you they were conscious, right? >If I can't be 100% sure that people feel in the same way that I do, then asking that same question for robots is totally pointless. I don't see how that at all follows.
tshaddox 4y ago
Of course children can understand (and be fascinated with) questions like “can a robot feel sadness the same way I do?” or “can my classmate feel sadness the same way I do?” Children can also understand (and be fascinated with) questions like “do dogs go to heaven?” But what is the epistemological status of these questions? That’s what I’m concerned with, not whether children can understand and be fascinated with these questions.
- ImprobableTruth 4y ago
  Then I don't understand why you're acting like it's some vague, malformed question. The things you asked for, what the question is really asking, what problems would be solved and plausible answers are all blindingly clear. Unless you're religious, the epistemic status of "do dogs go to heaven?" is obviously "no" (or "we have no way of knowing"). If you think the answer to "can robots experience qualia?" is equally trivial, then just say so, instead of going on some spiel about how actually the question is unclear and nonsensical when it pretty obviously isn't.

bseidensticker 4y ago

I can't be sure that other people feel in the same way that I do. I assume they do because they act like it and so I go along with it. If I can't be 100% sure that people feel in the same way that I do, then asking that same question for robots is totally pointless.

ImprobableTruth 4y ago
I'm pretty sure your rationale is more complex than that, you probably also account for things like "how similar are they to me?". After all, you wouldn't believe a video game character if they told you they were conscious, right? >If I can't be 100% sure that people feel in the same way that I do, then asking that same question for robots is totally pointless. I don't see how that at all follows.

tshaddox 4y ago

Of course children can understand (and be fascinated with) questions like “can a robot feel sadness the same way I do?” or “can my classmate feel sadness the same way I do?” Children can also understand (and be fascinated with) questions like “do dogs go to heaven?” But what is the epistemological status of these questions? That’s what I’m concerned with, not whether children can understand and be fascinated with these questions.

ImprobableTruth 4y ago
Then I don't understand why you're acting like it's some vague, malformed question. The things you asked for, what the question is really asking, what problems would be solved and plausible answers are all blindingly clear. Unless you're religious, the epistemic status of "do dogs go to heaven?" is obviously "no" (or "we have no way of knowing"). If you think the answer to "can robots experience qualia?" is equally trivial, then just say so, instead of going on some spiel about how actually the question is unclear and nonsensical when it pretty obviously isn't.