4 ms·
No, that isn't a sufficient definition because it is incapable of differentiating between sentience and evolutionarily habituated survival instincts that all li
by boringuser2 3y ago
No, that isn't a sufficient definition because it is incapable of differentiating between sentience and evolutionarily habituated survival instincts that all life forms have.
This is just silly.
- xg15 3y agoHow does > 7) associative learning that goes beyond habituation and sensitisation square with "evolutionarily habituated survival instincts"? What definition would you use instead?
- boringuser2 3y agoUnder that definition, a language learning model is sentient.
- xg15 3y agoI mean, there is an entire discussion ongoing whether or not they might be. But LLMs (today) don't fulfill criterion #7: After training is completed, the model is fixed, so there is no more learning going on. #6 would also be hard to map to an LLM.
- boringuser2 3y agoThat is inaccurate given that the modality for improving a model clearly fulfills criterion #7. The legal draft did not in any way either specify an AUTONOMOUS process, nor did it even specify any type of localized "learning" in terms of memory aggregation. A discerning reader might notice that this begins to wade into very challenging philosophical questions. Ding, ding, ding! You figured it out!
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- lucidone 3y agoWhat's the difference between the two?
- boringuser2 3y ago[flagged]
- oliveshell 3y agoOh no, a slippery slope of compassion! To wit, the long title of the bill: "An Act to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee with functions relating to the effect of government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings." Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem?
- boringuser2 3y ago[flagged]
- throwanem 3y agoAs long as you make a claim which depends on that answer for support, it absolutely is your job, and whatever axe you mean to grind here doesn't seem so far to be helping do that job.
- boringuser2 3y agoTo reject a proposal as clearly fraudulent, an alternate proposal need not be furnished.
- throwanem 3y agoNo, but you do need to substantiate the claim of fraud, and thus far you've yet to try. I doubt you will, but perhaps you'll surprise me.
- 3y ago
- kwhitefoot 3y ago> that all life forms have. Presumably including us. So are we also not sentient?
- transducers 3y agoIf a dog takes a beating, it will remember that, will be affected by it, will suffer for it, long after the physical event has passed. Just like us. The question is whether a crab would remember getting a beating. That is the difference between pseudo-mechanical stimulus-response and learned behavior, and a being that is ‘sentient’.
- throwanem 3y agoAs silly as begging the question of how sentience is accurately defined, such that this definition can be trivially dismissed as inaccurate?
- c22 3y agoPerhaps all lifeforms have sentience?
- boringuser2 3y agoI find this highly doubtful, but it also undeines just how challenging this domain is.
- deanCommie 3y agoYou can disagree with the findings, but why do you think attempting to understand the difference between sentience and evolutionarily habituated survival instincts is "silly"? Isn't it our job as a sentient, evolved species, to ensure we do no harm to other sentient species? And the only way we can begin to consider doing that is if we figure out a way to classify them?