7 ms·

why?

meowface 4y ago
I kept reading after it: even without it, it had already seemed very clear to me this person had a religious, not a rational, belief in the AI's sentience. With it, plus everything afterwards, it just seemed even more clear. I think none of his colleagues or supervisors are taking him seriously because there isn't anything to take seriously. It definitely does open interesting questions, though. Google's ethics team should formally investigate ways one could interrogate and analyze an AI to determine the probability that it could be conscious.
- salawat 4y ago
  This is darkly humorous, if only because we wouldn't tolerate anyone doing the same to another human being. Yet we have such an obsession with trying to figure out if these increasingly complex systems have crossed some line. I'm in the camp that capital allocators want to know how far they can push the process of implementing expert systems before having to deal with the troublesome consequences of an artificial entity; that's just a consequence of my jadedness w.r.t how we treat each other though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
threefourteen 4y ago
Because his background strongly suggests that he's far from scientifically objective when it comes to sentience. On another note maybe he saw an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame here. My personal experience with religious (Christian) young people is that they find it very hard to control their special narcissisms. Very hard to even recognize them as such as they masquerade behind false humbleness and ethics and several other layers. What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task. I'd thought that of all companies they would be much better in posting the right people for the right roles.
- lupire 4y ago
  You're supposed that Google does not discriminate on the basis of religious belief? In a country where that is explicitly illegal?
- crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
  This reads like an appeal for more religious discrimination in science. Is that what you're saying?
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.
    - toponaut 4y ago
      "the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it. Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.
      - deltaonefour 4y ago
        I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias. >Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true. Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.

why?

I kept reading after it: even without it, it had already seemed very clear to me this person had a religious, not a rational, belief in the AI's sentience. With it, plus everything afterwards, it just seemed even more clear. I think none of his colleagues or supervisors are taking him seriously because there isn't anything to take seriously. It definitely does open interesting questions, though. Google's ethics team should formally investigate ways one could interrogate and analyze an AI to determine the probability that it could be conscious.

salawat 4y ago
This is darkly humorous, if only because we wouldn't tolerate anyone doing the same to another human being. Yet we have such an obsession with trying to figure out if these increasingly complex systems have crossed some line. I'm in the camp that capital allocators want to know how far they can push the process of implementing expert systems before having to deal with the troublesome consequences of an artificial entity; that's just a consequence of my jadedness w.r.t how we treat each other though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

threefourteen 4y ago

Because his background strongly suggests that he's far from scientifically objective when it comes to sentience. On another note maybe he saw an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame here. My personal experience with religious (Christian) young people is that they find it very hard to control their special narcissisms. Very hard to even recognize them as such as they masquerade behind false humbleness and ethics and several other layers. What I find really odd though is that, given his background, Google actually assigned him to such a task. I'd thought that of all companies they would be much better in posting the right people for the right roles.

lupire 4y ago
You're supposed that Google does not discriminate on the basis of religious belief? In a country where that is explicitly illegal?
crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
This reads like an appeal for more religious discrimination in science. Is that what you're saying?
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  Science is at odds with religion anyway. The two things are fundamental opposites. You can set moral standards to not discriminate. But when you judge the situation dispassionately without polluting the logic with "morals" the discrimination makes factual sense. Religion is the opposite of science.
  - toponaut 4y ago
    "the discrimination makes factual sense." I can't figure out what you mean. Examples? You seem to be linking religion with "moral standards" and science with "facts". Neither of those are appropriate. Not all religions teach morality and, if there is such a thing as "fact" on some topic, there is no need to do science on it. Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". They can point in different directions but that happens within each domain too (Islam vs Buddhism / string theory vs standard model) and doesn't make them incompatible tools.
    - deltaonefour 4y ago
      I never linked religion and morality. Morality wasn't even a topic that was covered. It's just you and your bias. >Science and religion are both about our "best guesses". No. One is a better guess then the other. Science assumes logic and probability and mathematics are axiomatic concepts and builds upon that. It provides the ability to falsify a hypothesis given that you assume those axioms are true. Religion is a mess. No axioms, no logic, no foundational rules are assumed.