8 ms·

>...you are arguing against the most basic concepts of reasoning. If we want to draw a line in the sand of what is sentient and what is not, it involves making

>...you are arguing against the most basic concepts of reasoning. If we want to draw a line in the sand of what is sentient and what is not, it involves making a more detailed definition of the word itself. Whenever these discussions about AI come up the definition of sentience becomes extremely malleable. Compare this to when discussions of the sentience of the Octopus come up on this website and you'll be able to detect a difference. One is about theoreticals, and one is about observed physical behavior that is coupled with an exploration about how the sensor systems in that organism allow it to perceive reality. You can make an argument that a chat bot is similar to the Octopus, but I wouldn't.

KyleBerezin 4y ago
Chatbots are a simulation of a human, so gauging their sentience can be as simple as how human-like they are. An octopus is a different discussion and would involve deconstructing the idea of sentience. Can it exist without language? Are we just using it as a synonym for human-like? But I would argue chatbots and human simulacra are a great starting point since it dodges the multifaceted aspect of the sentience question.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Why do you want to dodge this, though? This goes back to my first point, that people try to move the goal posts when talking about AI.
  - KyleBerezin 4y ago
    dodge is perhaps a poor choice of words. It is hard enough to make the point of non-human sentience with chatbots. Nailing this down is the first baby step to answering more complicated questions. Octopuses on the other hand are alien to us and determining sentience would be very hard even with better language.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
> Whenever these discussions about AI come up the definition of sentience becomes extremely malleable The definition of sentience is always malleable because sentience is not a defined thing. When you're changing your interpretation of the word you're not adjusting towards a more right definition. You're just changing your definition to something more appropriate to your context. If you don't understand this, you're bound to fall into dumb philosophical thinking traps. I agree with your examples.

KyleBerezin 4y ago

Chatbots are a simulation of a human, so gauging their sentience can be as simple as how human-like they are. An octopus is a different discussion and would involve deconstructing the idea of sentience. Can it exist without language? Are we just using it as a synonym for human-like? But I would argue chatbots and human simulacra are a great starting point since it dodges the multifaceted aspect of the sentience question.

remarkEon 4y ago
Why do you want to dodge this, though? This goes back to my first point, that people try to move the goal posts when talking about AI.
- KyleBerezin 4y ago
  dodge is perhaps a poor choice of words. It is hard enough to make the point of non-human sentience with chatbots. Nailing this down is the first baby step to answering more complicated questions. Octopuses on the other hand are alien to us and determining sentience would be very hard even with better language.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

> Whenever these discussions about AI come up the definition of sentience becomes extremely malleable The definition of sentience is always malleable because sentience is not a defined thing. When you're changing your interpretation of the word you're not adjusting towards a more right definition. You're just changing your definition to something more appropriate to your context. If you don't understand this, you're bound to fall into dumb philosophical thinking traps. I agree with your examples.