3 ms·

Arguing that an AI chatbot is conscious is like ancient romans asking "Is a really big fire the same as lightning?" They both burn down big trees and can kill p

Arguing that an AI chatbot is conscious is like ancient romans asking "Is a really big fire the same as lightning?" They both burn down big trees and can kill people. Thus, they must be the same! A time traveller would tell them they don't understand lightning and they won't for 2000 years and trying to understand it through philosophizing is only going to some sort of random conjectures like the best way to avoid lightning is to burn down all the nearby trees as big fires need wood to burn, therefore lightning needs trees to strike.

grantcas 3y ago
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461 https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
- squigz 3y ago
  Why was this comment dead?
squigz 3y ago
Does this imply the discussion and growth related to learning these facts are useless?
- narrator 3y ago
  It's an invitation to confabulate rationalistic nonsense when the correct answer is to just say "we don't know the nature of lightning yet." That doesn't mean we can't come up with theories, but they have to be disregarded when they don't predict anything in a falsifiable way.
  - naasking 3y ago
    The fact that any human is conscious is non-falsifiable, so it seems like you're suggesting we throw out the concept entirely.
    - narrator 3y ago
      Just because the ancient Romans didn't understand lightning didn't mean it didn't exist.
      - naasking 3y ago
        Indeed, but then your original question about AIs being conscious is still a sensible one that needs answering, even if we won't be able to answer it for some time.
  - mock-possum 3y ago
    > we don't know the nature of lightning yet Most people’s disinclination to admit this to themselves, let alone to others, is basically what I blame for the prevalence of religious belief. I really wish everyone was more comfortable saying “I don’t know yet,” instead of just making shit up.
marcosdumay 3y ago
They did understand it's different, didn't they? I mean, by the time of their empire, several Greek already understood it. I have no idea about how widespread that knowledge was, but every time I look into science spread on those times, I discover the answer is "widely".

grantcas 3y ago

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461 https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

squigz 3y ago
Why was this comment dead?

squigz 3y ago

Does this imply the discussion and growth related to learning these facts are useless?

narrator 3y ago
It's an invitation to confabulate rationalistic nonsense when the correct answer is to just say "we don't know the nature of lightning yet." That doesn't mean we can't come up with theories, but they have to be disregarded when they don't predict anything in a falsifiable way.
- naasking 3y ago
  The fact that any human is conscious is non-falsifiable, so it seems like you're suggesting we throw out the concept entirely.
  - narrator 3y ago
    Just because the ancient Romans didn't understand lightning didn't mean it didn't exist.
    - naasking 3y ago
      Indeed, but then your original question about AIs being conscious is still a sensible one that needs answering, even if we won't be able to answer it for some time.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  > we don't know the nature of lightning yet Most people’s disinclination to admit this to themselves, let alone to others, is basically what I blame for the prevalence of religious belief. I really wish everyone was more comfortable saying “I don’t know yet,” instead of just making shit up.

marcosdumay 3y ago

They did understand it's different, didn't they? I mean, by the time of their empire, several Greek already understood it. I have no idea about how widespread that knowledge was, but every time I look into science spread on those times, I discover the answer is "widely".