3 ms·
> But, perhaps Lemoine simply has more empathy than most for something we will come to understand as sentience? No, the OP was completely right. This doesn't h
by smolder 4y ago
> But, perhaps Lemoine simply has more empathy than most for something we will come to understand as sentience?
No, the OP was completely right. This doesn't have building blocks that can possibly result in something qualifying as sentient, which is how we know it isn't.
Is a quack-simulating computer making very lifelike quacking noises through a speaker... a duck? No, not when using any currently known method of simulation.
- dcow 4y agoOf course it’s mot a duck, because we have an objective definition of duck.
- smolder 4y agoRight. Maybe if we had a down-to-the-atom perfect simulation of a duck, you could argue that it's a duck in another state of being. With the AI this deranged engineer decided to call sentient, we have the equivalent of a quacking simulator, not a full duck simulator or even a partial one. It is not thinking. It has nothing like a brain nor the essential components of thought.