67 ms·
That line of argument swiftly devolves into the case for solipsism. Generally, you may preface any Internet discussion with: first, assume there an independent
by jnwatson 4y ago
That line of argument swiftly devolves into the case for solipsism.
Generally, you may preface any Internet discussion with: first, assume there an independent reality that the author and the readers share. Also causation and the forward arrow of time is true. (It occurs to me that this sounds like prompt engineering.)
In other words, you can never conclusively determine you’re not hallucinating (c.f. Hume), but let’s pretend we’re not for the sake of discussion.
- detrites 4y agoUnfortunately, it also swiftly devolves into the issue being discussed... It's not possible to prove whether or not a model can hallucinate or even think, based upon the premise that we have arbitrarily defined what constitutes "thought" (and so also "hallucination"). Can you prove an AI can or can't "think" in a way close enough to us that it could be considered to have basic ("human") rights? What if we built it out of biological material? And would that make any difference? Why? This leads to: how may we objectively prove that the exclusivity of biological "consciousness", as we've defined it, is correct? How may we prove either we or an AI can think, hallucinate, or "be conscious", when we are unable to objectively define the terms in a provable way? I think it may be impossible, and as I said - I don't think it's a trivial concern. We may soon be faced with an entity that demands we respect it, and we need to have worked through as much of that discussion as possible, prior.
- jnwatson 4y agoIf you’re a behaviorist, you don’t care if it thinks or the internal machinery at all.