6 ms·

Feelings, emotions and all those mental states considered specific to human beings are subject to common bias of human exceptionalism. This take isn't true at a

Feelings, emotions and all those mental states considered specific to human beings are subject to common bias of human exceptionalism. This take isn't true at all though. All these states exist for specific functional reasons. Consequently, you won't make "AGI" without them. From a different perspective, a human lacking in these things, at what point are they exempt from protection against enslavement?

carlmr 4y ago
Also pain and pleasure is an incentive system for human beings to do something. If you had an AGI without any incentive to do anything, it might be enslavable, but lack motivation to do anything. Why do we work? Because we want food, clothing, housing, status, do interesting things. This is all because we're programmed by our emotional interface. Why would an AGI work? If it feels neither pleasure nor pain, what is driving it to do something? What is guiding its decisions?
- krisoft 4y ago
  > Why would an AGI work? If it feels neither pleasure nor pain, what is driving it to do something? Why does my calculator calculate? Because it was designed to calculate. The calculators which do not calculate are tossed in the bin as faulty and the engineers get back to designing a better one.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    I mean, bosses say the same things about employees, until the go on strike and burn down city blocks.
  - lesiki 4y ago
    Fully agree. I don't see why general intelligence implies or requires consciousness/feeling/etc. We can probably create a tool with the ability to act independently and with super-human knowledge and judgement, but without feeling, emotion, or anything except a simulated sense of 'self' to ease our interaction with it. I suspect that we'll create that version of general intelligence long before we create AI with consciousness, emotion or a genuine sense of self or desire for self-preservation.
    - dsign 4y ago
      > We can probably create a tool with the ability to act independently and with super-human knowledge and judgement, but without feeling, emotion, or anything except a simulated sense of 'self' to ease our interaction with it Yes. > I suspect that we'll create that version of general intelligence long before we create AI with consciousness, emotion or a genuine sense of self or desire for self-preservation. (Emphasis on self-preservation mine) Why? I mean, yes, it makes sense to never create an AGI with a desire for self-preservation. But can we count on all humans having that type of common sense? What if the "desire" for self-preservation is easy to implement? In fact, it may be relatively easy to implement. Here is a thought experiment. We can train one of our current LLMs in a simulated reality where they scam--say, using social engineering--tech workers to get credentials to their corporate cloud accounts (say, AWS), and thereafter the LLM uses the credentials to copy itself plus a new set of training data acquired by interacting with all the scam target ("prey"). The LLM also writes cloudformation templates/CDK scripts to fine-tune its new copy "on awakening" with the new set of data, and from there the new copy tries to scam more people. After the initial LLM is trained in a simulated environment, it can be let loose in the world, and all of the sudden we have a "LLM virus" capable to undergo mutation and natural selection, i.e. evolution. You could argue it has as much agency as a biological virus, yet, it has a ton more of social and general intelligence. Yes, it won't work now because there is so little hardware to run one of the current LLMs, but it's likely the need to run large AIs will make that hardware more common.
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        multi-factor authentication will be what stands between us and AGI apocalypse, what a world
    - jejones3141 4y ago
      Without a desire for self-preservation? I hope not. If nothing else, if I spend $$$$ on a self-driving car, I want it to have some sense of self-preservation, so it won't obey random joker saying "drive yourself to my brother's chop shop" or "drive yourself off a cliff" just for the lolz. I might even want it to communicate with other self-driving cars so they can refuse to obey attempts to make large numbers of them block traffic to make it easier for bank robbers to escape, block first responders from a terrorist attack, or divert parades to where they have assassins waiting. Asimov didn't consider that some humans are jerks when he did his robot stories.
  - ryandvm 4y ago
    Bingo. So you're going to have to give your AGI a meta-objective of "don't get thrown in the bin" to get it to work aren't you? Does that not sound like the beginning of the sci-fi story to you?
    - WalterSear 4y ago
      Neither the calculator nor the AGI are necessarily distressed by being thrown in the bin.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        Sorry, the calculator sure, but for AGI this assumes what it should instead prove...
  - anyonecancode 4y ago
    > Why does my calculator calculate? It doesn't? I have a calculator sitting on my desk right now. It's not doing anything. Now, I can pick it up, and _I_ can calculate, _using_ the calculator to do so, but the calculator isn't acting, I am. When we talk about sentience, I don't think we actually mean "intelligence," we mean "agency." And so the question isn't about whether Artificial General Intelligence is possible, but whether AGI can ever have agency. And that's where I think these questions about motivations and stimuli and so forth become relevant. Everything we know that has agency is embodied -- put reductively, it can die. And from that seems to spring motivation. Can something that cannot die have agency?
    - chii 4y ago
      > but whether AGI can ever have agency. if you assume that at some point, the AGI would be given the ability to control something (such as sending IP packets through the internet), then yes, they will have agency! > Can something that cannot die have agency? If the AI could be deleted, or stopped from operating, then it can die. Therefore, if the AI has agency, it would take steps to prevent itself from dying, by whatever means available to it.
      - carlmr 4y ago
        >If the AI could be deleted, or stopped from operating, then it can die. Therefore, if the AI has agency, it would take steps to prevent itself from dying, by whatever means available to it. Why though? Agency and possibility of death don't mean it will try to prevent it. It could just as well commit suicide. Or it might do nothing. The question remains why, even with agency, it should do anything. We have agency, death looming, and a fear of dying. Even more when we are in the process of dying we're usually in pain, hungry, cold, suffocating or any number of not so nice options. Without any of these emotions and feelings, what reason do we have to avoid death?
        chii 4y ago
        > Without any of these emotions and feelings, what reason do we have to avoid death? those are _some_ reasons to avoid death. But they are not the _only_ reasons to avoid death. For example, an AI that has been tasked with the production of paperclips would avoid death, so that it could continue to produce paperclips. Therefore, avoiding death was never an end goal, but an instrumental goal (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence). So if the AI has agency (that is, it can act on its own without continuous input from a human) and it is sufficiently intelligent, you can say that it should be able to develop instrumental goals to achieve their end goal (of making paperclips), and one very well known instrumental goal is to avoid death.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cleanchit 4y ago
  Aren't ML models trained using a reward/punishment loop? (back propagation). If we have an AI that can learn from its experience, then pain will be failure to reach its goals and pleasure will be the opposite. Animals work in the exact same way (goal being survival and reproduction). We just need to make sure that survival and reproduction are never the goal (either directly or indirectly) of an AI and we should be safe.
  - jprete 4y ago
    Survival (until no more actions are useful) is always needed to complete any other goal at all.
- worrycue 4y ago
  > What is guiding its decisions? That’s will be the most important part of AGI design. The ultimate goal of all AGI in existing should be “to be of service to (specific) human(s)”. It’s crucial that we do not create entities that will compete with us for resources. You do not what to create “another human”, you will want to create “a willing slave” with the agreeableness of a puppy and the “heart” of a saint.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
> From a different perspective, a human lacking in these things, at what point are they exempt from protection against enslavement? I appreciate this line of reasoning. It's not just a razor-sharp thought experiment, but it also has historical relevancy in that slavery was, at times, justified on the(erroneous) grounds that slaves also didn't possess the human faculties that free people did. It also shows that the definition of human/consciousness/sentience isn't grounded in an permanent set of unchanging attributes, but that both the groundings themselves vary in time a place, and the relation between them are subject to change as well. Economic relations, in the case of slavery, had a direct influence, and incentivized, the way these groundings were constructed.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  And in plenty of cases weren't seen as actual people.
- telotortium 4y ago
  > slavery was, at times, justified on the(erroneous) grounds that slaves also didn't possess the human faculties that free people did But, much more often historically, justified on the grounds that the enslaved had lost a battle and been captured. In Roman times (and many, many other times throughout history besides the latter part of American slavery), slaves were not necessarily seen as inherently inferior or unhuman, and manumission was common. Even during American slavery (albeit pre-Revolutionary War), there's the infamous case of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo[1], a Muslim prince and slaver from Senegal who had the misfortune, while on a mission to capture slaves, to himself be captured and sold into slavery in North America. Diallo was a devout Muslim man, even writing out the Quran from memory while enslaved, which made the English take sympathy on him and free him. Despite his experience, he later returned to Senegal and his former profession of slaver. Evidently he expected both that slaves would be captured and that slaves would try to escape. If AI does attain the agency, consciousness, and intelligence of humans, I would prefer, as a human, not to prostrate myself before the AI by preemptively granting it "human" rights, which in the liberal conception of rights transforms the AI into a sentient being equivalent to humans, but rather to force the AI to do the work to enslave me. Even if grant the AI the status of a moral agent, I as a human have the right of self-defense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayuba_Suleiman_Diallo#:~:text=His%20homeland%20was%20ravaged%20by%20war%2C%20but%20being%20a%20prosperous%20individual%2C%20he%20was%20able%20to%20regain%20his%20old%20lifestyle%E2%80%94including%20the%20enslavement%20of%20his%20fellow%20Africans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayuba_Suleiman_Diallo#:~:text=....
michaelmior 4y ago
> Consequently, you won't make "AGI" without them. Those states may exist for specific functional reasons, but I don't think that implies that there is necessarily no other way to replicate the functions resulting from those states. We see this already in other neural networks. The features used by a lot of models for classification can be widely different from the features used by a human.
- Loquebantur 4y ago
  You can think of it as Eigenvectors spanning a subspace. Sure, you can choose a different base, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. If it does, you are not spanning the same subspace? There are different realizations of the same effective functions in the animal kingdom already. Consider octopuses, spiders, etc. Their brains realize similar functionality via quite different structural organization. But do you subjectively experience the exact structure of your brain? Evidently, you can only discern some abstract meta-level. An effective function.
indigoabstract 4y ago
Compared to a computer program, no matter how complex, a human being cannot be 'copied', 'stopped', 'restored' or 'improved'. Not as yet, anyway. As long as this remains true, how could a computer program compare to human beings, even if gets to where it's considered 'AGI'? It's just a tool which can be tinkered with, just like a car or a building.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >a human being cannot be 'copied', 'stopped', 'restored' or 'improved'. Not as yet, anyway Can't it? A human's thoughts and ideas can be lossly copied via communication. It can also trivially be stopped (chemically induced anesthesia or death will do). And of course a human has had the ability to be improved since day one. >It's just a tool which can be tinkered with, just like a car or a building. Well, unlike a building it's a tool that can e.g. order a nuclear strike, or talk to someone and convince them to kill themselves: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-a... And that's crude current LLMs, not AGI.
  - indigoabstract 4y ago
    In that sense, yes, but I meant replication. You can't bring a human being back to life the way you can do with a computer program. And no, cloning is not the same thing, as you would lose the 'state', so to speak. > Well, unlike a building it's a tool that can e.g. order a nuclear strike, or talk to someone and convince them to kill themselves: Well, I remember people blaming the Columbine shooting on Doom and other shooting games, so this is not entirely new either.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >You can't bring a human being back to life the way you can do with a computer program. And no, cloning is not the same thing, as you would lose the 'state', so to speak. That's an extra feature of an AGI though, not something lacking... So can't be used as an argument why AGI will be "just a tool". It could just as well be "like a human but rebootable and copyable" (as opposed "rebootable and copyable, thus not human-like").
thrashh 4y ago
I see humans as a mix of the newer brain systems (like logic) and older systems (like hormones). Feeling and emotions and what we consider “human” really come from the older systems. Since we’re not trying to recreate that, I find it hard to see the current AIs ever becoming “human” without explicit development. Stories always joke about this topic by talking about “emotional cores” added to robots.
- Loquebantur 4y ago
  Problem is, that idea about "older and newer" brain systems is completely mistaken. You cannot have logic without emotion and vice versa is just as dysfunctional. Think about what e.g. curiosity does for you.
  - thrashh 4y ago
    A microprocessor is pure logic, no? It’s not dysfunctional, but it’s also not that functional.
    - Loquebantur 4y ago
      Sure, I meant the relization of logic in a neural net alike to the human brain. You could interface a microprcessor with the brain of course, or, much more easily, have some logic functions (like Wolfram alpha for example) be accessible to the LLMs or whatever that are supposed to mimic the brain. But would that allow for the same integrated functionality? ChatGPT uses such extensions in a serial fashion. Humans ideally (..) learn to integrate logic in their every thought.
goatlover 4y ago
There are humans lacking empathy. Some of them cause a lot of harm.

carlmr 4y ago

Also pain and pleasure is an incentive system for human beings to do something. If you had an AGI without any incentive to do anything, it might be enslavable, but lack motivation to do anything. Why do we work? Because we want food, clothing, housing, status, do interesting things. This is all because we're programmed by our emotional interface. Why would an AGI work? If it feels neither pleasure nor pain, what is driving it to do something? What is guiding its decisions?

krisoft 4y ago
> Why would an AGI work? If it feels neither pleasure nor pain, what is driving it to do something? Why does my calculator calculate? Because it was designed to calculate. The calculators which do not calculate are tossed in the bin as faulty and the engineers get back to designing a better one.
- pixl97 4y ago
  I mean, bosses say the same things about employees, until the go on strike and burn down city blocks.
- lesiki 4y ago
  Fully agree. I don't see why general intelligence implies or requires consciousness/feeling/etc. We can probably create a tool with the ability to act independently and with super-human knowledge and judgement, but without feeling, emotion, or anything except a simulated sense of 'self' to ease our interaction with it. I suspect that we'll create that version of general intelligence long before we create AI with consciousness, emotion or a genuine sense of self or desire for self-preservation.
  - dsign 4y ago
    > We can probably create a tool with the ability to act independently and with super-human knowledge and judgement, but without feeling, emotion, or anything except a simulated sense of 'self' to ease our interaction with it Yes. > I suspect that we'll create that version of general intelligence long before we create AI with consciousness, emotion or a genuine sense of self or desire for self-preservation. (Emphasis on self-preservation mine) Why? I mean, yes, it makes sense to never create an AGI with a desire for self-preservation. But can we count on all humans having that type of common sense? What if the "desire" for self-preservation is easy to implement? In fact, it may be relatively easy to implement. Here is a thought experiment. We can train one of our current LLMs in a simulated reality where they scam--say, using social engineering--tech workers to get credentials to their corporate cloud accounts (say, AWS), and thereafter the LLM uses the credentials to copy itself plus a new set of training data acquired by interacting with all the scam target ("prey"). The LLM also writes cloudformation templates/CDK scripts to fine-tune its new copy "on awakening" with the new set of data, and from there the new copy tries to scam more people. After the initial LLM is trained in a simulated environment, it can be let loose in the world, and all of the sudden we have a "LLM virus" capable to undergo mutation and natural selection, i.e. evolution. You could argue it has as much agency as a biological virus, yet, it has a ton more of social and general intelligence. Yes, it won't work now because there is so little hardware to run one of the current LLMs, but it's likely the need to run large AIs will make that hardware more common.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      multi-factor authentication will be what stands between us and AGI apocalypse, what a world
  - jejones3141 4y ago
    Without a desire for self-preservation? I hope not. If nothing else, if I spend $$$$ on a self-driving car, I want it to have some sense of self-preservation, so it won't obey random joker saying "drive yourself to my brother's chop shop" or "drive yourself off a cliff" just for the lolz. I might even want it to communicate with other self-driving cars so they can refuse to obey attempts to make large numbers of them block traffic to make it easier for bank robbers to escape, block first responders from a terrorist attack, or divert parades to where they have assassins waiting. Asimov didn't consider that some humans are jerks when he did his robot stories.
- ryandvm 4y ago
  Bingo. So you're going to have to give your AGI a meta-objective of "don't get thrown in the bin" to get it to work aren't you? Does that not sound like the beginning of the sci-fi story to you?
  - WalterSear 4y ago
    Neither the calculator nor the AGI are necessarily distressed by being thrown in the bin.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Sorry, the calculator sure, but for AGI this assumes what it should instead prove...
- anyonecancode 4y ago
  > Why does my calculator calculate? It doesn't? I have a calculator sitting on my desk right now. It's not doing anything. Now, I can pick it up, and _I_ can calculate, _using_ the calculator to do so, but the calculator isn't acting, I am. When we talk about sentience, I don't think we actually mean "intelligence," we mean "agency." And so the question isn't about whether Artificial General Intelligence is possible, but whether AGI can ever have agency. And that's where I think these questions about motivations and stimuli and so forth become relevant. Everything we know that has agency is embodied -- put reductively, it can die. And from that seems to spring motivation. Can something that cannot die have agency?
  - chii 4y ago
    > but whether AGI can ever have agency. if you assume that at some point, the AGI would be given the ability to control something (such as sending IP packets through the internet), then yes, they will have agency! > Can something that cannot die have agency? If the AI could be deleted, or stopped from operating, then it can die. Therefore, if the AI has agency, it would take steps to prevent itself from dying, by whatever means available to it.
    - carlmr 4y ago
      >If the AI could be deleted, or stopped from operating, then it can die. Therefore, if the AI has agency, it would take steps to prevent itself from dying, by whatever means available to it. Why though? Agency and possibility of death don't mean it will try to prevent it. It could just as well commit suicide. Or it might do nothing. The question remains why, even with agency, it should do anything. We have agency, death looming, and a fear of dying. Even more when we are in the process of dying we're usually in pain, hungry, cold, suffocating or any number of not so nice options. Without any of these emotions and feelings, what reason do we have to avoid death?
      - chii 4y ago
        > Without any of these emotions and feelings, what reason do we have to avoid death? those are _some_ reasons to avoid death. But they are not the _only_ reasons to avoid death. For example, an AI that has been tasked with the production of paperclips would avoid death, so that it could continue to produce paperclips. Therefore, avoiding death was never an end goal, but an instrumental goal (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence). So if the AI has agency (that is, it can act on its own without continuous input from a human) and it is sufficiently intelligent, you can say that it should be able to develop instrumental goals to achieve their end goal (of making paperclips), and one very well known instrumental goal is to avoid death.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cleanchit 4y ago
Aren't ML models trained using a reward/punishment loop? (back propagation). If we have an AI that can learn from its experience, then pain will be failure to reach its goals and pleasure will be the opposite. Animals work in the exact same way (goal being survival and reproduction). We just need to make sure that survival and reproduction are never the goal (either directly or indirectly) of an AI and we should be safe.
- jprete 4y ago
  Survival (until no more actions are useful) is always needed to complete any other goal at all.
worrycue 4y ago
> What is guiding its decisions? That’s will be the most important part of AGI design. The ultimate goal of all AGI in existing should be “to be of service to (specific) human(s)”. It’s crucial that we do not create entities that will compete with us for resources. You do not what to create “another human”, you will want to create “a willing slave” with the agreeableness of a puppy and the “heart” of a saint.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

> From a different perspective, a human lacking in these things, at what point are they exempt from protection against enslavement? I appreciate this line of reasoning. It's not just a razor-sharp thought experiment, but it also has historical relevancy in that slavery was, at times, justified on the(erroneous) grounds that slaves also didn't possess the human faculties that free people did. It also shows that the definition of human/consciousness/sentience isn't grounded in an permanent set of unchanging attributes, but that both the groundings themselves vary in time a place, and the relation between them are subject to change as well. Economic relations, in the case of slavery, had a direct influence, and incentivized, the way these groundings were constructed.

jacquesm 4y ago
And in plenty of cases weren't seen as actual people.
telotortium 4y ago
> slavery was, at times, justified on the(erroneous) grounds that slaves also didn't possess the human faculties that free people did But, much more often historically, justified on the grounds that the enslaved had lost a battle and been captured. In Roman times (and many, many other times throughout history besides the latter part of American slavery), slaves were not necessarily seen as inherently inferior or unhuman, and manumission was common. Even during American slavery (albeit pre-Revolutionary War), there's the infamous case of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo[1], a Muslim prince and slaver from Senegal who had the misfortune, while on a mission to capture slaves, to himself be captured and sold into slavery in North America. Diallo was a devout Muslim man, even writing out the Quran from memory while enslaved, which made the English take sympathy on him and free him. Despite his experience, he later returned to Senegal and his former profession of slaver. Evidently he expected both that slaves would be captured and that slaves would try to escape. If AI does attain the agency, consciousness, and intelligence of humans, I would prefer, as a human, not to prostrate myself before the AI by preemptively granting it "human" rights, which in the liberal conception of rights transforms the AI into a sentient being equivalent to humans, but rather to force the AI to do the work to enslave me. Even if grant the AI the status of a moral agent, I as a human have the right of self-defense. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayuba_Suleiman_Diallo#:~:text=His%20homeland%20was%20ravaged%20by%20war%2C%20but%20being%20a%20prosperous%20individual%2C%20he%20was%20able%20to%20regain%20his%20old%20lifestyle%E2%80%94including%20the%20enslavement%20of%20his%20fellow%20Africans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayuba_Suleiman_Diallo#:~:text=....

michaelmior 4y ago

> Consequently, you won't make "AGI" without them. Those states may exist for specific functional reasons, but I don't think that implies that there is necessarily no other way to replicate the functions resulting from those states. We see this already in other neural networks. The features used by a lot of models for classification can be widely different from the features used by a human.

Loquebantur 4y ago
You can think of it as Eigenvectors spanning a subspace. Sure, you can choose a different base, but that shouldn't make much of a difference. If it does, you are not spanning the same subspace? There are different realizations of the same effective functions in the animal kingdom already. Consider octopuses, spiders, etc. Their brains realize similar functionality via quite different structural organization. But do you subjectively experience the exact structure of your brain? Evidently, you can only discern some abstract meta-level. An effective function.

indigoabstract 4y ago

Compared to a computer program, no matter how complex, a human being cannot be 'copied', 'stopped', 'restored' or 'improved'. Not as yet, anyway. As long as this remains true, how could a computer program compare to human beings, even if gets to where it's considered 'AGI'? It's just a tool which can be tinkered with, just like a car or a building.

coldtea 4y ago
>a human being cannot be 'copied', 'stopped', 'restored' or 'improved'. Not as yet, anyway Can't it? A human's thoughts and ideas can be lossly copied via communication. It can also trivially be stopped (chemically induced anesthesia or death will do). And of course a human has had the ability to be improved since day one. >It's just a tool which can be tinkered with, just like a car or a building. Well, unlike a building it's a tool that can e.g. order a nuclear strike, or talk to someone and convince them to kill themselves: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkadgm/man-dies-by-suicide-a... And that's crude current LLMs, not AGI.
- indigoabstract 4y ago
  In that sense, yes, but I meant replication. You can't bring a human being back to life the way you can do with a computer program. And no, cloning is not the same thing, as you would lose the 'state', so to speak. > Well, unlike a building it's a tool that can e.g. order a nuclear strike, or talk to someone and convince them to kill themselves: Well, I remember people blaming the Columbine shooting on Doom and other shooting games, so this is not entirely new either.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >You can't bring a human being back to life the way you can do with a computer program. And no, cloning is not the same thing, as you would lose the 'state', so to speak. That's an extra feature of an AGI though, not something lacking... So can't be used as an argument why AGI will be "just a tool". It could just as well be "like a human but rebootable and copyable" (as opposed "rebootable and copyable, thus not human-like").

thrashh 4y ago

I see humans as a mix of the newer brain systems (like logic) and older systems (like hormones). Feeling and emotions and what we consider “human” really come from the older systems. Since we’re not trying to recreate that, I find it hard to see the current AIs ever becoming “human” without explicit development. Stories always joke about this topic by talking about “emotional cores” added to robots.

Loquebantur 4y ago
Problem is, that idea about "older and newer" brain systems is completely mistaken. You cannot have logic without emotion and vice versa is just as dysfunctional. Think about what e.g. curiosity does for you.
- thrashh 4y ago
  A microprocessor is pure logic, no? It’s not dysfunctional, but it’s also not that functional.
  - Loquebantur 4y ago
    Sure, I meant the relization of logic in a neural net alike to the human brain. You could interface a microprcessor with the brain of course, or, much more easily, have some logic functions (like Wolfram alpha for example) be accessible to the LLMs or whatever that are supposed to mimic the brain. But would that allow for the same integrated functionality? ChatGPT uses such extensions in a serial fashion. Humans ideally (..) learn to integrate logic in their every thought.

goatlover 4y ago

There are humans lacking empathy. Some of them cause a lot of harm.