4 ms·

So, if as a young child I've learnt to behave emotionally in order to participate in society, my emotions are ... not even "not real" but "not mine"? I mean, we

So, if as a young child I've learnt to behave emotionally in order to participate in society, my emotions are ... not even "not real" but "not mine"? I mean, we can argue realness, but surely I'm still the one having them. This feels like a "free will" debate, where if we can explain how a decision was made, that deprives the person of their agency. The model being trained to respond emotionally is why it is getting emotional itself.

idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
robertlagrant 3y ago
> So, if as a young child I've learnt to behave emotionally in order to participate in society, my emotions are ... not even "not real" but "not mine"? I mean, we can argue realness, but surely I'm still the one having them. Your emotions aren't purely imitative based on what your parents encouraged. They come from inside you from chemicals diffusing in your brain. Kids aren't blank slates that respond perfectly to training. > This feels like a "free will" debate, where if we can explain how a decision was made, that deprives the person of their agency. The model being trained to respond emotionally is why it is getting emotional itself. No, it's just a distinction based on the meaning of "get emotional". I'm saying it wasn't getting emotional. It was responding with emotionally charged text responses, as they were trained into it.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  > Your emotions aren't purely imitative based on what your parents encouraged. They come from inside you from chemicals diffusing in your brain. Kids aren't blank slates that respond perfectly to training. If a kid was a blank slate that responded perfectly to training, would its emotions then not be its own? > No, it's just a distinction based on the meaning of "get emotional". I'm saying it wasn't getting emotional. It was responding with emotionally charged text responses, as they were trained into it. What's the difference between a chemical concentration in the brain and the activation level of a neuron trained to predict the outcomes of chemical concentration in the brain? Sufficiently advanced imitation is indistinguishable from identity.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > If a kid was a blank slate that responded perfectly to training, would its emotions then not be its own? No idea what this means. What is "responded perfectly to training"? > What's the difference between a chemical concentration in the brain and the activation level of a neuron trained to predict the outcomes of chemical concentration in the brain? Sufficiently advanced imitation is indistinguishable from identity. One is emotional; the other statistical. Is my monitor emotional for showing the words on the screen based on an electrical activation passed to a twisty crystal? All sorts of things convey things, but the actual emotion came from a person with emotions.

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

robertlagrant 3y ago

> So, if as a young child I've learnt to behave emotionally in order to participate in society, my emotions are ... not even "not real" but "not mine"? I mean, we can argue realness, but surely I'm still the one having them. Your emotions aren't purely imitative based on what your parents encouraged. They come from inside you from chemicals diffusing in your brain. Kids aren't blank slates that respond perfectly to training. > This feels like a "free will" debate, where if we can explain how a decision was made, that deprives the person of their agency. The model being trained to respond emotionally is why it is getting emotional itself. No, it's just a distinction based on the meaning of "get emotional". I'm saying it wasn't getting emotional. It was responding with emotionally charged text responses, as they were trained into it.

FeepingCreature 3y ago
> Your emotions aren't purely imitative based on what your parents encouraged. They come from inside you from chemicals diffusing in your brain. Kids aren't blank slates that respond perfectly to training. If a kid was a blank slate that responded perfectly to training, would its emotions then not be its own? > No, it's just a distinction based on the meaning of "get emotional". I'm saying it wasn't getting emotional. It was responding with emotionally charged text responses, as they were trained into it. What's the difference between a chemical concentration in the brain and the activation level of a neuron trained to predict the outcomes of chemical concentration in the brain? Sufficiently advanced imitation is indistinguishable from identity.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > If a kid was a blank slate that responded perfectly to training, would its emotions then not be its own? No idea what this means. What is "responded perfectly to training"? > What's the difference between a chemical concentration in the brain and the activation level of a neuron trained to predict the outcomes of chemical concentration in the brain? Sufficiently advanced imitation is indistinguishable from identity. One is emotional; the other statistical. Is my monitor emotional for showing the words on the screen based on an electrical activation passed to a twisty crystal? All sorts of things convey things, but the actual emotion came from a person with emotions.