3 ms·

I like the "mirror test" metaphor. But the argument holds whether or not our creations are sentient--the things we create always be a reflection of us. I'm ver

I like the "mirror test" metaphor. But the argument holds whether or not our creations are sentient--the things we create always be a reflection of us. I'm very afraid that when we do manage to create something sentient, we'll fail to recognize it, and we'll ridicule anyone who does. I've been trying to write about this [1] [2] without sounding ridiculous, though I'm not sure how good a job I've done. [1] https://superbowl.substack.com/p/a-different-kind-of-ai-risk-artificial https://superbowl.substack.com/p/a-different-kind-of-ai-risk... [2] https://superbowl.substack.com/p/who-will-be-first-ai-to-earn-legal https://superbowl.substack.com/p/who-will-be-first-ai-to-ear...

swatcoder 4y ago
Because it’s a word used to describe a wholly private experience, the only kind of sentience is arguable sentience. Some argue that it requires some specific ethic heritage, a divine will, a quantum-woo pineal gland, a network complexity threshold, etc etc etc. I believe I see it in most animals, some person replying to this will think that’s absurd. Some 4chan solipsist will sincerely believe most humans are just virtue signaling NPC’s. Many communities have withheld recognition of it in outsiders or lower classes. Some believe it’s an illusion that one may shed and that their most esteemed have done so. Parents and psychologists will disagree over how it applies to babies. There’s no epistemological way to resolve that except through voluntary consensus, and that’s an unfathomably slow and erratic process. So yes, there will inevitably be technological inventions — possibly soon - that some people will insist deserve the rights and respects we associate with sentience, and just as inevitably there will be many people who find that ridiculous. There’s no way around it. This is not a topic any of us will live long enough to see resolved, if we even get to see it really start. Fretting about it is fine if you fashion yourself a philosopher or just enjoy systematizing or worrying as a hobby. But it’s so much bigger, slower, and more abstract than you that there’s little constructive achieved in doing so.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  > Fretting about it is fine if you fashion yourself a philosopher or just enjoy systematizing or worrying as a hobby. But it’s so much bigger, slower, and more abstract than you that there’s little constructive achieved in doing so. I completely agreed with you up to this point! You could make the same claim about global warming or war. It's similar to the argument that you shouldn't vote, because one vote never tips an election. Many different little efforts can roll up into major changes. It's worth participating! Just because your efforts won't be recognized as particularly important or special doesn't mean they're worthless.
smusamashah 4y ago
If a sophisticated autocomplete can be debated about being sentient or not, then we had near sentient software for a very long time.

swatcoder 4y ago

Because it’s a word used to describe a wholly private experience, the only kind of sentience is arguable sentience. Some argue that it requires some specific ethic heritage, a divine will, a quantum-woo pineal gland, a network complexity threshold, etc etc etc. I believe I see it in most animals, some person replying to this will think that’s absurd. Some 4chan solipsist will sincerely believe most humans are just virtue signaling NPC’s. Many communities have withheld recognition of it in outsiders or lower classes. Some believe it’s an illusion that one may shed and that their most esteemed have done so. Parents and psychologists will disagree over how it applies to babies. There’s no epistemological way to resolve that except through voluntary consensus, and that’s an unfathomably slow and erratic process. So yes, there will inevitably be technological inventions — possibly soon - that some people will insist deserve the rights and respects we associate with sentience, and just as inevitably there will be many people who find that ridiculous. There’s no way around it. This is not a topic any of us will live long enough to see resolved, if we even get to see it really start. Fretting about it is fine if you fashion yourself a philosopher or just enjoy systematizing or worrying as a hobby. But it’s so much bigger, slower, and more abstract than you that there’s little constructive achieved in doing so.

superb-owl 4y ago
> Fretting about it is fine if you fashion yourself a philosopher or just enjoy systematizing or worrying as a hobby. But it’s so much bigger, slower, and more abstract than you that there’s little constructive achieved in doing so. I completely agreed with you up to this point! You could make the same claim about global warming or war. It's similar to the argument that you shouldn't vote, because one vote never tips an election. Many different little efforts can roll up into major changes. It's worth participating! Just because your efforts won't be recognized as particularly important or special doesn't mean they're worthless.

smusamashah 4y ago

If a sophisticated autocomplete can be debated about being sentient or not, then we had near sentient software for a very long time.