3 ms·
> Some people seem fully convinced that what these programs are doing is equivalent to human behavior to a degree that would qualify the program to receive huma
by dnissley 4y ago
> Some people seem fully convinced that what these programs are doing is equivalent to human behavior to a degree that would qualify the program to receive human-like considerations, i.e. treating the software like an entity instead of just a program/tool to be wielded by the end-user.
Wait, what? Who is doing this??
- haswell 4y agoIn recent threads about how the legal system will interpret what Stable Diffusion is doing from a copyright perspective, multiple commenters were making the argument that the system is no different than a human learning and drawing inspiration from artwork. Some went further to claim that we don't know enough about consciousness to make any judgements about the nature of this software. As if somehow, this lack of knowledge implies the system must be conscious by default. It's a weird line of argument, but points to how strongly people feel pulled to confer consciousness on things they do not understand. Maybe the panpsychists have it right, but that's an argument to be had at a much broader level and unrelated to AI, but that seems akin to living your life according to Pascal's wager. And in the case of AI, the cost of treating it with this reference could be great, and the potential for abuse greater.