5 ms·

Even so, it's so easy to dismiss AI as "insentient" without any proof whatsoever - exactly because the definition of "sentience" is inherently subjective and ca

Even so, it's so easy to dismiss AI as "insentient" without any proof whatsoever - exactly because the definition of "sentience" is inherently subjective and cannot be measured in any meaningful way. At some point, after AI becomes capable of passing all Turing tests known to men, people will have to deal with the fact that they don't know what "sentience" is, and I think at that point they will divide in two diametrically opposed clans: 1. those who believe that humans are nothing more than glorified bio-computers, and consider AI sentient 2. those who believe that sentience is human-only and that a machine can't be sentient, no matter how sentient it appears And both groups will hold on to their views dogmatically, because there is no way to prove/disprove "sentience".

jstanley 4y ago
> 2. those who believe that sentience is human-only and that a machine can't be sentient, no matter how sentient it appears Why stop there? There's no reason some humans couldn't be non-sentient, no matter how sentient they appear. What possible test can you conduct to determine whether someone has subjective internal experience? I don't think it's possible. I think we just have to take people at their word: if they say they're sentient, we have to believe them. I don't see why machines should be held to a higher standard than humans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zzzeek 4y ago
  this is true and any individual person can choose to assume that "they" are the only being in the universe that's actually sentient. the rest of the universe and everything in it can be a seemingly vast simulation all targeted at the one consciousness that's inside of us. I realized this when I read the first (second?) Hitchhikers Guide when i was like 14. Zaphod Beeblebrox was given a universe that was entirely made for him, which is how he survived the (I dont remember what it was called but it showed you all at once how insignificant you were in the universe, unless of course that whole universe was tailor made just for you!)
  - bena 4y ago
    The Total Perspective Vortex, it extrapolates the entirety of the universe and shows you your relationship to it, powered by a small piece of fairy cake. But, in reality, he's just this guy, you know.
    - zzzeek 4y ago
      Thanks! I knew someone would chime in, was trying to find it on Wikipedia
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  > I don't see why machines should be held to a higher standard than humans. I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. Additionally, other humans act in a way I would expect from someone sentient. Neither of these apply to any existing AI.
  - danadannecy 4y ago
    Does it stand to reason that other humans are sentient? The opposite view is the root of solipsism. What if an AI in the future acts in a way that you would expect from someone sentient?
    - kybernetikos 4y ago
      > What if an AI in the future acts in a way that you would expect from someone sentient? Yes, this is the meat and potatoes of the question. Personally I think that the safest approach in that case is to treat them as if they were sentient, but there are lots of people with various prejudices about what the prerequisites for sentience are that would fall on the other side of the question.
  - jstanley 4y ago
    > I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. That doesn't stand to reason at all, it's just popularly assumed. I can hear my thoughts, but I can't hear yours. I can see through my eyes, but I can't see through yours, and so on. There are many differences between "I" and "everyone else". Just because something is true about you doesn't mean it stands to reason that it's true about everyone else. > Additionally, other humans act in a way I would expect from someone sentient. This is totally circular reasoning. Humans only act the way you expect sentient people to act because your training data for "sentient people" is "humans". The only person you know is sentient is yourself. Personally I find that most people quite frequently act very differently to how I would act. Should I conclude that they're not sentient? Further, the fact that machines don't act like humans is no evidence at all that they're not sentient, it's only evidence that they're not human. They are very different to humans, so of course they don't act the same. They don't have bodies like us, or biological needs like us. That says nothing about whether or not they're sentient.
- janekm 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “take people/algorithms at their word”. “Sentience”/“Consciousness” are at least in part social constructs, in that the words we use, both between humans but also in our internal dialogue, are social constructs. I think it is hard to untangle any potential non-linguistic aspect of these concepts from the language we use to describe and perceive them. Currently we have the challenge that algorithms can regurgitate the language we use to discuss these concepts, and we don’t have the tools to distinguish that from how humans use those same words. With current transformer models we can make a cogent case that there is a fundamental difference to human mental states, however I believe this will very soon get a lot more difficult once multi-modal algorithms are used in embodied forms and with continuous re-training and context databases.
- fsflover 4y ago
  > There's no reason some humans couldn't be non-sentient, no matter how sentient they appear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
zzzeek 4y ago
> it's so easy to dismiss AI as "insentient" without any proof whatsoever as it should be because it's asking to prove a negative. burden of proof for "sentience" is on those who claim it. as a bonus, "I know a human when I see one" does not count!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  What exactly makes "sentience" a positive and "insentience" a negative? We might as well invent a new word - say, "bodise" which means "insentient". Would in that case "bodise" be a positive and "inbodise" a negative?

jstanley 4y ago

> 2. those who believe that sentience is human-only and that a machine can't be sentient, no matter how sentient it appears Why stop there? There's no reason some humans couldn't be non-sentient, no matter how sentient they appear. What possible test can you conduct to determine whether someone has subjective internal experience? I don't think it's possible. I think we just have to take people at their word: if they say they're sentient, we have to believe them. I don't see why machines should be held to a higher standard than humans.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zzzeek 4y ago
this is true and any individual person can choose to assume that "they" are the only being in the universe that's actually sentient. the rest of the universe and everything in it can be a seemingly vast simulation all targeted at the one consciousness that's inside of us. I realized this when I read the first (second?) Hitchhikers Guide when i was like 14. Zaphod Beeblebrox was given a universe that was entirely made for him, which is how he survived the (I dont remember what it was called but it showed you all at once how insignificant you were in the universe, unless of course that whole universe was tailor made just for you!)
- bena 4y ago
  The Total Perspective Vortex, it extrapolates the entirety of the universe and shows you your relationship to it, powered by a small piece of fairy cake. But, in reality, he's just this guy, you know.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    Thanks! I knew someone would chime in, was trying to find it on Wikipedia
cmeacham98 4y ago
> I don't see why machines should be held to a higher standard than humans. I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. Additionally, other humans act in a way I would expect from someone sentient. Neither of these apply to any existing AI.
- danadannecy 4y ago
  Does it stand to reason that other humans are sentient? The opposite view is the root of solipsism. What if an AI in the future acts in a way that you would expect from someone sentient?
  - kybernetikos 4y ago
    > What if an AI in the future acts in a way that you would expect from someone sentient? Yes, this is the meat and potatoes of the question. Personally I think that the safest approach in that case is to treat them as if they were sentient, but there are lots of people with various prejudices about what the prerequisites for sentience are that would fall on the other side of the question.
- jstanley 4y ago
  > I know I am sentient, so it stands to reason other humans are sentient. That doesn't stand to reason at all, it's just popularly assumed. I can hear my thoughts, but I can't hear yours. I can see through my eyes, but I can't see through yours, and so on. There are many differences between "I" and "everyone else". Just because something is true about you doesn't mean it stands to reason that it's true about everyone else. > Additionally, other humans act in a way I would expect from someone sentient. This is totally circular reasoning. Humans only act the way you expect sentient people to act because your training data for "sentient people" is "humans". The only person you know is sentient is yourself. Personally I find that most people quite frequently act very differently to how I would act. Should I conclude that they're not sentient? Further, the fact that machines don't act like humans is no evidence at all that they're not sentient, it's only evidence that they're not human. They are very different to humans, so of course they don't act the same. They don't have bodies like us, or biological needs like us. That says nothing about whether or not they're sentient.
janekm 4y ago
I don’t think it’s quite as simple as “take people/algorithms at their word”. “Sentience”/“Consciousness” are at least in part social constructs, in that the words we use, both between humans but also in our internal dialogue, are social constructs. I think it is hard to untangle any potential non-linguistic aspect of these concepts from the language we use to describe and perceive them. Currently we have the challenge that algorithms can regurgitate the language we use to discuss these concepts, and we don’t have the tools to distinguish that from how humans use those same words. With current transformer models we can make a cogent case that there is a fundamental difference to human mental states, however I believe this will very soon get a lot more difficult once multi-modal algorithms are used in embodied forms and with continuous re-training and context databases.
fsflover 4y ago
> There's no reason some humans couldn't be non-sentient, no matter how sentient they appear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

zzzeek 4y ago

> it's so easy to dismiss AI as "insentient" without any proof whatsoever as it should be because it's asking to prove a negative. burden of proof for "sentience" is on those who claim it. as a bonus, "I know a human when I see one" does not count!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paskozdilar 4y ago
What exactly makes "sentience" a positive and "insentience" a negative? We might as well invent a new word - say, "bodise" which means "insentient". Would in that case "bodise" be a positive and "inbodise" a negative?