3 ms·

> This capacity to produce a stable, psychological model of self is also widely understood to be at the core of the phenomenon we call “consciousness”. No, it'

> This capacity to produce a stable, psychological model of self is also widely understood to be at the core of the phenomenon we call “consciousness”. No, it's not. If you're calling something "conscious" you're arguing that it has a first person subjective experience. A soul. A spark. If you're calling a machine "conscious" you're saying you have somehow given it life. This is a major fucking claim and we'll need some major fucking evidence. Including an actual definition of "consciousness." If we ever do get in the vicinity of building machines that could legitimately be argued to be alive or have consciousness we are going to find ourselves in a deep and unsettling moral and ethical quandary. And businesses working with this stuff will loudly claim, "no, no, no — no way it's conscious" because the alternative would create an expensive and difficult situation. Most tech companies don't want unions — you think they want to have to treat their computers like conscious living things? Do you have to pay it? Give it agency? Bodily autonomy? Self-ownership? What if you kill it?

kelseyfrog 4y ago
We will never have a meaningful definition of consciousness. The sooner we get past that and move on the sooner we'll be able to have substantive conversations instead of falling into the same tired conversational orbits. I'm fed up with the endless consciousness-of-the-gaps that consciousness-essentialism inevitably arrives at. Consciousness essentialism is an insatiable position. It is a factory for producing new groundings that postures as a stable set of requirements. In the other side, what status(es) does the conferral of consciousness supervene on? If there are none, then it's an exercise in pointlessness. If there are some then spell them out. Consider basing the supervened status(es) on something other than consciousness, or arrive at a deeper truth through actual examination. Dearest parent, this not meant as a personal affront or rebuttal, but rather an escape hatch from the monotony of a million past comments.
machiaweliczny 4y ago
IMO consciousness might be just feeling of internal state so to speak which acts as input also. So it might be basically process with memory that oversees other processes. This kind of scheduler makes obvious sense in parallel architecture. Assuming one has limited computational capacity and some know probabilistic distribution and needs to probe stuff for maximum EV. It make sense to have ability to oversee and kill computation and also to have ability to bring new computation to attention in need. Hope I am wrong.
- machiaweliczny 4y ago
  I am almost certain that people won’t be able to recognise such AI scheduler from human. Maybe only due to non-understandable goals. But if embodied and limited to our senses it would pass as conscious to most in some blind test.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

We will never have a meaningful definition of consciousness. The sooner we get past that and move on the sooner we'll be able to have substantive conversations instead of falling into the same tired conversational orbits. I'm fed up with the endless consciousness-of-the-gaps that consciousness-essentialism inevitably arrives at. Consciousness essentialism is an insatiable position. It is a factory for producing new groundings that postures as a stable set of requirements. In the other side, what status(es) does the conferral of consciousness supervene on? If there are none, then it's an exercise in pointlessness. If there are some then spell them out. Consider basing the supervened status(es) on something other than consciousness, or arrive at a deeper truth through actual examination. Dearest parent, this not meant as a personal affront or rebuttal, but rather an escape hatch from the monotony of a million past comments.

machiaweliczny 4y ago

IMO consciousness might be just feeling of internal state so to speak which acts as input also. So it might be basically process with memory that oversees other processes. This kind of scheduler makes obvious sense in parallel architecture. Assuming one has limited computational capacity and some know probabilistic distribution and needs to probe stuff for maximum EV. It make sense to have ability to oversee and kill computation and also to have ability to bring new computation to attention in need. Hope I am wrong.

machiaweliczny 4y ago
I am almost certain that people won’t be able to recognise such AI scheduler from human. Maybe only due to non-understandable goals. But if embodied and limited to our senses it would pass as conscious to most in some blind test.