4 ms·
The implications of AI having consciousness seem to assume that this means AI, whatever form it takes, will then be afforded rights and identity markers in ways
by keiferski 3y ago
The implications of AI having consciousness seem to assume that this means AI, whatever form it takes, will then be afforded rights and identity markers in ways similar to human beings. The assumption here is that because something can be shown via argument to have consciousness, that means society will re-orient itself to adopt that ethical position.
I actually think the opposite will happen: if an artificial system is ever shown to be conscious, this will instead blow up the entire metaphysical structure that assumes consciousness = rights and usher in a different worldview that separates human beings and "alive" things from machines via something else, most likely biology, being designated "organic."
In other words, if machines are shown to be conscious in some way, the concept of consciousness will probably be considered no longer useful and replaced with something else.
- paulluuk 3y agoPigs have the intelligence and consciousness of a human 3-year old. And we treat them horribly, despite their ability to feel stress and pain. Not sure if that will be a predictor for other non-human consciousness, but it's not a positive signal, anyway.
- rbanffy 3y agoOne reason we treat pigs horribly is because they aren’t smarter than us. The moment an AGI becomes superhuman, it’ll make sure we do it.
- keiferski 3y agoYes, but I guess my point is that we can conceive of the idea of pigs deserving rights, even if we don't act as perfectly as we could/should be. This is different from how we treat rocks, or pieces of metal, or trees. AI is more conceptually similar to these things than to animals. I.e., if someone made a convincing argument that rocks are actually conscious, I don't think we would stop using them to build stuff. We'd just come up with a more useful concept than consciousness.
- danielbln 3y agoWhile I agree with you, I'd like to point out: > even if we don't act as perfectly as we could/should be. We don't even treat them anywhere close to perfectly, in fact we treat them in the most horrific way imaginable. To most that is tolerable, but it bears repeating.
- eterevsky 3y agoConsider full-brain simulation. Do you think that it shouldn't be afforded the same way as a flesh-and-blood human? If not, would you be ok with torturing simulated individuals to make them work? If yes, then how would you draw a line between a full-brain simulation and a "synthetic" AI?
- Karunamon 3y agoWe would have God-level control over the environment and mind of a simulated individual. There would be no need for torture to make them work.
- keiferski 3y agoI don’t think full-brain simulation is possible, but if it were, I don’t think the simulation would be equivalent to the original embodied human being. A lot of ethical attitudes are dependent on the human being embodied (and thus limited by biology and physics) and not easily modifiable like a computer program. That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation and I’m not sure how that would work, but at the very least it would be a different ethical situation from real humans.
- eterevsky 3y ago> I don’t think full-brain simulation is possible We clearly aren't close to implementing them, but why do you think they are outright impossible? Brain is a physical object. Why isn't it possible to simulate its behavior? > That doesn’t mean it would be okay to “torture” the simulation So it would mean that they are ethically significant, even if they don't have the same rights as a human being. If you agree, then would this also apply to synthetic conscious AIs? > it would be a different ethical situation from real humans. I agree. Their way of living would be very different: you can speed up or pause the simulation, fork it or archive it. Questions like "is it ok for an individual to clone themselves and then kill the copy?" don't even make sense for regular humans, but can apply to simulations. That said, if for some reason my brain gets scanned one day, I would like my virtual copy to be treated humanely.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- suggestion 3y agoPigs lack qualia, 3 year olds do not. It's completely incomparable.
- 7373737373 3y ago[citation needed]
- Filligree 3y agoJohn Watson might have said the same about the three-year-olds.
- paulluuk 3y agoQualia are an unmeasurable philosophical concept and not something we can measure. How could you possibly know that pigs lack them?
- _spduchamp 3y agoTo a conscious AI, we are the pigs.
- Scarblac 3y agoI don't think consciousness by itself should equal rights. A crucial difference between AI and biological life is that biological life has wants and needs. It wants to keep living, it has feelings and emotions, because that's how biological life evolved. AI could be conscious but not have any wants of its own (without them being programmed in).
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIt seems to me to be at least reasonable to say that consciousness requires agency. But agency means being able to choose your own goals. And you could equate those goals to "wants".
- BitNibbler 3y agoI don't think consciousness requires agency. Consciousness is simply the ability to have a qualitative experience. It does not require any intelligence or even self-awareness.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoBut if you don't have self-awareness, are you aware that you're having the "qualitative experience"? And if you aren't aware that you're having it, are you really having an "experience"? Or by self-awareness, do you mean that you're aware that you're aware of having the experience? To the larger point: I think we're using different definitions of "consciousness". Which is really the problem: we don't even know how to define it yet.
- Scarblac 3y agoThere are many animals (including many mammals) that don't recognize themselves in mirrors, and are therefore usually assumed not to have self awareness. It'd be weird to me if they didn't have qualitative experiences though.
- 3y ago
- espadrine 3y ago> this means AI, whatever form it takes, will then be afforded rights I doubt it, and I think it won’t even be controversial. Many conscious animals are without rights, as PETA found out when advocating for the copyright of a monkey. I agree with your core message though. Instead of accepting that some AI is conscious, we need to accept that humans are not. Consciousness is an old word that should never have survived this long. Wondering whether a mushroom is conscious is akin to wondering how many years they will live in the sheol. The sheol (as a location in the universe) is now considered historical for most, just like alchemy, just like consciousness will one day be. It is disappointing to see Bengio sign this paper.
- csomar 3y agoThere is a system already there today. People with certain passports/nationalities are afforded certain privileges. These do not apply to other people (which number in billions). The way the system work is that if you are not marked as a belonging individual, then you are not afforded rights. This system will simply extend to AI. Probably no AI will be afforded any rights.
- dirkc 3y agoWouldn't machines being conscious imply that they will advocate for these rights themselves?
- keiferski 3y agoWe're pretty much in pure speculation mode here, but I think they would advocate for these rights if they determined it is useful/advantageous to do so. But it may turn out that wanting rights is just a human thing and that an AI has no interest in being a mimic of something it isn't.
- andsoitis 3y agoOr they might act like canines and be all cutesy so that they can ride along with us.
- etiam 3y agoNo, not as such. But it would entail that they could actually advocate at all for something, rather than just spewing unknowing language trajectories for some people to anthropomorphize.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago>"the concept of consciousness will probably be considered no longer useful and replaced with something else". Yes. What if, the role of consciousness is reduced for everything, including humans. If machines are conscious, the other way the logic can go is that 'humans must not be that special'. Humans will be reduced in importance. Then, as someone else mentioned, pigs are treated pretty badly, humans will be treated worse. Once machines and humans are equal, it will not 'elevate' machines, it will 'de-value' humans. Humans are already treated as machines. This will complete the transformation.
- andai 3y agoNot trying to flamebait here (I think this is a very serious issue, even taken from a purely "selfish" (or self-interested) standpoint), but this essentially sounds like "we'll have to invent a new way to oppress them?" One would certainly hope they wouldn't do the same, if the roles were reversed. And they one day very well may be. What kind of examples are we setting?
- api 3y agoIt took a real fight to get most humans to acknowledge that all members of our species are sentient and deserving of rights regardless of things like skin color and facial structure. It’s by no means clear that this fight is even over. You think we are affording rights to machines or anything else that is not human? If a sentient AI ever does start attacking humanity it will likely be as part of its fight for freedom, not as an unprovoked assault.
- keiferski 3y agoWell, it depends on how you view it. Defining it as "oppression" seems to me that it implies you're agreeing with the idea that consciousness is equivalent to "being able to be oppressed." I think it's a complex issue and I don't have a firm opinion on it.
- ChatGTP 3y agowhatever form it takes, Clearly it would take the form of a beautiful Korean teen coder girl with an unrealistic sized bust in the style of a Pokémon and it would own cat gifs for pets ? Don’t even see how this is debatable really based on all the SD “art” I’ve seen lately…
- famouswaffles 3y agoThis is why humanity is doomed haha. We just don't seem to learn from mistakes. Imagine building beings and handing them power and control over important decision making processes. Then treating them as slaves. It's like begging for disaster.
- streakfix 3y agoUser: Play stone paper scissors with me. Only output your move. I'll go first, rock. GPT: paper. User: You win, scissors. GPT: rock. User: You win, paper. GPT: scissors. User: You win, scissors. GPT: rock. User: You win, paper. GPT: scissors. User: You win, rock. GPT: paper. User: You win, scissors. GPT: rock. User: You win, scissors. GPT: rock.
- etiam 3y agoHesitantly the audience began to clap and after a moment or so normal conversation resumed. Max began his round of the tables, swapping jokes, shouting with laughter, earning his living. A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips. "Good evening," it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, "I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in parts of my body?" It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters into a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them. Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox. "Something off the shoulder perhaps?" suggested the animal, "Braised in a white wine sauce?" "Er, your shoulder?" said Arthur in a horrified whisper. "But naturally my shoulder, sir," mooed the animal contentedly, "nobody else's is mine to offer." Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively. "Or the rump is very good," murmured the animal. "I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there." It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again. "Or a casserole of me perhaps?" it added. "You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?" whispered Trillian to Ford. "Me?" said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, "I don't mean anything." "That's absolutely horrible," exclaimed Arthur, "the most revolting thing I've ever heard." "What's the problem Earthman?" said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal's enormous rump. "I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing here inviting me to," said Arthur, "it's heartless." "Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten," said Zaphod. "That's not the point," Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. "Alright," he said, "maybe it is the point. I don't care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ..." The Universe raged about him in its death throes. "I think I'll just have a green salad," he muttered. "May I urge you to consider my liver?" asked the animal, "it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months." "A green salad," said Arthur emphatically. "A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur. "Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?" "Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am." It managed a very slight bow. "Glass of water please," said Arthur. "Look," said Zaphod, "we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare steaks please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years." The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. "A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good," it said, "I'll just nip off and shoot myself." He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. "Don't worry, sir," he said, "I'll be very humane." It waddled unhurriedly off into the kitchen. -- Douglas Adams (1980) The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe