6 ms·

Holy moly, I think this author hits the critical point. So what’s being stripped away here? And how? The what is easy. It’s personhood. AI being good at Art,

Holy moly, I think this author hits the critical point. So what’s being stripped away here? And how? The what is easy. It’s personhood. AI being good at Art, Poems, etc are direct attacks on personhood or the things we thought make us human. It certainly explains why I feel art AI to be far more chilling then a logical robotic AI.

jvanderbot 4y ago
I never had a soap box, but if I did you'd notice I have been screaming that the revolution that comes from human like AI is not that we have magical computers, it's that we realize we have no magic in our minds. We are nothing more than stories we repeat and build on. And with text, you can do that easily. > Seeing and being seen is apparently just neurotic streams of interleaved text flowing across a screen. Or, our mind.
- atchoo 4y ago
  No matter how fancy the chat bot, until we solve the "Hard problem of consciousness", there will be magic in our minds.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    I don't think it's that hard, and I'm not alone in saying that. It seems hard because (IMHO) we won't admit it's just something like GPT running on only our own memories.
    - stuckinhell 4y ago
      I agree with you. This is my biggest fear. The AI's ability to do art, and creative work is extremely close to how human minds work but at a greater scale. If true, then humanity isn't special, and the human mind is soon obsolete.
      - jvanderbot 4y ago
        I wouldn't worry about "obsolete". There are better minds than mine all over, but mine is still relevant, mostly because it runs on as much energy as a candle instead of a country, and doesn't distract those better minds.
    - minusf 4y ago
      all your thoughts and answers are functions of your previous thoughts and answers only? all your memories are regurgitated memories of previous memories? dont be so hard on yourself :)
  - layer8 4y ago
    Pointing to the hard problem of consciousness in present-day discourse about consciousness doesn’t do much, because people disagree that there is a hard problem of consciousness in the first place.
- mrjh 4y ago
  “we realize we have no magic in our minds” Surely an AI is a digital replica (and homage) of that magic? Without the magic in our minds we could’ve never created that replica. To me it’s an acknowledgement of how awesome our own brains are that we want to even replicate them.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    I believe and hope people at least consider that, yeah an AI is a replica of that, and for all AIs failures, it's a really good replica of most of what it is to be human and "conscious". After that, it's all feeding back your story to yourself, and compounding memories from actual experience. (Which , have you noticed, are mostly stories)
  - pixl97 4y ago
    So if we're magic and it is magic then technically this is ok. But the problem is we create it, so it can't be magic. So if we're magic and it is not magic then its just an object we are free to abuse (at least from many peoples perspective). I like to think of it as we're complex and interesting, and it is complex and interesting but neither of us is magic. We don't like to be abused, so creating something like us and abusing it would be completely unethical.
  - ProllyInfamous 4y ago
    I think what THIS AGI REVOLUTION MEANS MOST to me is that "human creativity" is actually such a rare quality/attribute, as-to-be laughable that this [human creativity] is a "definingly human" characteristic/attribute, when so-few humans even have it [in any capacity]. What I have acknowledged after playing locally with Diffusion Bee's local GPU abilities... and Perplexity's ability to discuss in-depth knowledge across real-time information and entirely-unknown author's booklists. On both platforms I have submitted perhaps a few hundred queries over perhaps the past 60 days. My next-door neighbor published his first [and only] book at 72, which I helped copy/edit... and it summarized his <10,000 sales war-memorabilia/tales quite well.
- qudat 4y ago
  Agreed. There is no hard problem of consciousness, we are just biased. https://bower.sh/what-is-consciousness https://bower.sh/what-is-consciousness
  - prmph 4y ago
    There absolutely is a hard problem of consciousness. One thought experiment I like to use to illustrate this: Imagine we accept that an AI is conscious, in the same way a human is. Now, what defines the AI? You might say the algorithm and the trained weights. Ok, so let’s say, in a similar way, we extract the relevant parameters from a human brain and use that to craft a new human. Are they the same person, or two? Do they experience the same consciousness? Would they share the same embodied experience? Could the one be dead and other alive? If so, what makes them have their own individuality? If your loved one died, and their brain was reconstructed from parameters stored while they were alive, would you accept that as a resurrection? Why or why not? Note that I offer no answer to the above questions. But trying to answer them is part of what the hard problem of consciousness is about.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      Imagine we found all the connections, chemical weighting, and neuron structure that exactly reproduced ChatGPT in the forebrain. Is ChatGPT now a human? Absolutely not. But is it capable of human like speech? Yep. ChatGPT will probably say it is conscious if you tell it that it is (for various values of tell). Do we really know there's anything else going on with us? I don't. I think we're all stories told by learning machines mimicking culture we observe, compete with memes for soul, special creativity, etc. We vastly overestimate our intelligence and vastly underestimate the cumulative effects of million years of culture.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      So lets make this an easier problem. You step in a Star Trek transporter. Scotty goes to beam you up but after a quick flash you are still there. But, they get notice that you were also delivered to the other side. There are two exact copies of you now. I would say at t=0 they are the exact same person that would think the exact same way if put in the same experiences. Of course physical existence will quickly skew from that point. For the case of the love one that died, I would argue 'they' are the same person from the moment they are stored. The particular problem here is there will be a massive skew in shared experience. You got to suffer their (presumably) traumatic death that has changed you. Them now coming back into existence into your trama will likely lead you to believe that they changed when it is you that has changed. Add to this the physical time jump where they were missing will cause the same things in all their other social interactions. Just imagine being kidnapped but being unconscious the entire time. The world will treat you differently when you get back even though you've not really changed.
- prmph 4y ago
  I’m not sure that’s correct. An AI is severely constrained to the modes of thought which which is was created. Call me when an AI comes up with original philosophy, describes it in terms of what is already understood, explains why it is necessary, and is able to promote it to acceptance. I think people severely underestimate the original thought capacity of the human mind. An AI could never come up with the concept of Calculus, or relativity, for instance. Yes, if you feed it enough data, and assuming you have endowed it with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm, it might (probably) use something that resembles calculus internally, but it certainly will not be able to espouse it as a concept and explain what new problems it will allow us go imagine.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Call me when you come up with original philosophy....

jvanderbot 4y ago

I never had a soap box, but if I did you'd notice I have been screaming that the revolution that comes from human like AI is not that we have magical computers, it's that we realize we have no magic in our minds. We are nothing more than stories we repeat and build on. And with text, you can do that easily. > Seeing and being seen is apparently just neurotic streams of interleaved text flowing across a screen. Or, our mind.

atchoo 4y ago
No matter how fancy the chat bot, until we solve the "Hard problem of consciousness", there will be magic in our minds.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  I don't think it's that hard, and I'm not alone in saying that. It seems hard because (IMHO) we won't admit it's just something like GPT running on only our own memories.
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    I agree with you. This is my biggest fear. The AI's ability to do art, and creative work is extremely close to how human minds work but at a greater scale. If true, then humanity isn't special, and the human mind is soon obsolete.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      I wouldn't worry about "obsolete". There are better minds than mine all over, but mine is still relevant, mostly because it runs on as much energy as a candle instead of a country, and doesn't distract those better minds.
  - minusf 4y ago
    all your thoughts and answers are functions of your previous thoughts and answers only? all your memories are regurgitated memories of previous memories? dont be so hard on yourself :)
- layer8 4y ago
  Pointing to the hard problem of consciousness in present-day discourse about consciousness doesn’t do much, because people disagree that there is a hard problem of consciousness in the first place.
mrjh 4y ago
“we realize we have no magic in our minds” Surely an AI is a digital replica (and homage) of that magic? Without the magic in our minds we could’ve never created that replica. To me it’s an acknowledgement of how awesome our own brains are that we want to even replicate them.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  I believe and hope people at least consider that, yeah an AI is a replica of that, and for all AIs failures, it's a really good replica of most of what it is to be human and "conscious". After that, it's all feeding back your story to yourself, and compounding memories from actual experience. (Which , have you noticed, are mostly stories)
- pixl97 4y ago
  So if we're magic and it is magic then technically this is ok. But the problem is we create it, so it can't be magic. So if we're magic and it is not magic then its just an object we are free to abuse (at least from many peoples perspective). I like to think of it as we're complex and interesting, and it is complex and interesting but neither of us is magic. We don't like to be abused, so creating something like us and abusing it would be completely unethical.
- ProllyInfamous 4y ago
  I think what THIS AGI REVOLUTION MEANS MOST to me is that "human creativity" is actually such a rare quality/attribute, as-to-be laughable that this [human creativity] is a "definingly human" characteristic/attribute, when so-few humans even have it [in any capacity]. What I have acknowledged after playing locally with Diffusion Bee's local GPU abilities... and Perplexity's ability to discuss in-depth knowledge across real-time information and entirely-unknown author's booklists. On both platforms I have submitted perhaps a few hundred queries over perhaps the past 60 days. My next-door neighbor published his first [and only] book at 72, which I helped copy/edit... and it summarized his <10,000 sales war-memorabilia/tales quite well.
qudat 4y ago
Agreed. There is no hard problem of consciousness, we are just biased. https://bower.sh/what-is-consciousness https://bower.sh/what-is-consciousness
- prmph 4y ago
  There absolutely is a hard problem of consciousness. One thought experiment I like to use to illustrate this: Imagine we accept that an AI is conscious, in the same way a human is. Now, what defines the AI? You might say the algorithm and the trained weights. Ok, so let’s say, in a similar way, we extract the relevant parameters from a human brain and use that to craft a new human. Are they the same person, or two? Do they experience the same consciousness? Would they share the same embodied experience? Could the one be dead and other alive? If so, what makes them have their own individuality? If your loved one died, and their brain was reconstructed from parameters stored while they were alive, would you accept that as a resurrection? Why or why not? Note that I offer no answer to the above questions. But trying to answer them is part of what the hard problem of consciousness is about.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Imagine we found all the connections, chemical weighting, and neuron structure that exactly reproduced ChatGPT in the forebrain. Is ChatGPT now a human? Absolutely not. But is it capable of human like speech? Yep. ChatGPT will probably say it is conscious if you tell it that it is (for various values of tell). Do we really know there's anything else going on with us? I don't. I think we're all stories told by learning machines mimicking culture we observe, compete with memes for soul, special creativity, etc. We vastly overestimate our intelligence and vastly underestimate the cumulative effects of million years of culture.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    So lets make this an easier problem. You step in a Star Trek transporter. Scotty goes to beam you up but after a quick flash you are still there. But, they get notice that you were also delivered to the other side. There are two exact copies of you now. I would say at t=0 they are the exact same person that would think the exact same way if put in the same experiences. Of course physical existence will quickly skew from that point. For the case of the love one that died, I would argue 'they' are the same person from the moment they are stored. The particular problem here is there will be a massive skew in shared experience. You got to suffer their (presumably) traumatic death that has changed you. Them now coming back into existence into your trama will likely lead you to believe that they changed when it is you that has changed. Add to this the physical time jump where they were missing will cause the same things in all their other social interactions. Just imagine being kidnapped but being unconscious the entire time. The world will treat you differently when you get back even though you've not really changed.
prmph 4y ago
I’m not sure that’s correct. An AI is severely constrained to the modes of thought which which is was created. Call me when an AI comes up with original philosophy, describes it in terms of what is already understood, explains why it is necessary, and is able to promote it to acceptance. I think people severely underestimate the original thought capacity of the human mind. An AI could never come up with the concept of Calculus, or relativity, for instance. Yes, if you feed it enough data, and assuming you have endowed it with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm, it might (probably) use something that resembles calculus internally, but it certainly will not be able to espouse it as a concept and explain what new problems it will allow us go imagine.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Call me when you come up with original philosophy....