4 ms·

Its easily conceivable now that one can create a machine that impersonates a human and emotions, and then that machine would be coded to write a sonnet or conce

Its easily conceivable now that one can create a machine that impersonates a human and emotions, and then that machine would be coded to write a sonnet or concerto. But, although it will give the impression (illusion) of feeling, it will still be running its code. Humans will have coded a fantastic illusionist, with no more emotional ability than any other tool, eg a hammer. > According to the most extreme form of this view the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the machine and to feel oneself thinking. This is true - one can only verify subjectivity in oneself. One might assume another living being does feel - but, we could be wrong - eg psychopathy can mean that others are unaware of a psychopath's "feelings" or lack of. It does seem to me, that if we were able to code an ai that gives the impression of feelings, composes concertos apparently independently, etc, that ai would have to be a sort of psychopath. Without getting too lost in spiritual BS, I think we are more than mere matter - the value in our experiences come from our emotions and feelings - not mere inputs that we label as 'emotions' and 'feelings' as would be the case for an ai. But emotions etc are subjective states, not objectively verifiable (even if we can see something correlating on a chart). Put simply, ai can never have a 'soul' even if it presents a wonderful appearance of kindliness, emotionality or whatever. Perhaps there will be no test in the world that will be able to find this out. But it still won't have feelings, it can only ever be a automaton.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>"the value in our experiences come from our emotions and feelings - not mere inputs that we label as 'emotions' and 'feelings' as would be the case for an ai." </sarcasm> Because humans have emotions, but not just what we 'label as emotions' but you know, 'real' emotions, not like those AI emotions. So basically, you are arguing for a non-logic assumption that humans have souls, Machines can't, and we should just take that as gospel and move on.
- verisimi 3y ago
  Do you not think your experience, 'personal processing' is special? That while you can perhaps imagine other people having similar experiences, your own experience is unique and not just the inevitable output of your 'wetware' and its inputs to date? That you observe reality and yourself and choose parts to change on account of your feelings and intuitions? I do think the materialistic idea that we are a sort of computer, with hardware (the body) and software (the mind) is a brilliant metaphor... but like any metaphor it is only so useful. Many people nowadays believe this metaphor to be literal. However, it is too mechanistic and does cannot account for subjective intangibles which is where all the value of life is, eg boredom, excitement, joy. Ie life is occurring in the experiences of the 'computer operator' in the metaphor.
  - ninjanomnom 3y ago
    I've spent no small amount of time thinking about my own mind and thought patterns, but I've never thought I was special. When I work to understand myself and others, it feels like putting together rules for some slowly changing system with complex enough inner workings to be nearly random in some cases. Even so, I can understand people entirely different to myself so I can empathize and work with them. Honestly the more I see from LLMs the more it makes me think that we are much the same. Imagine a network of many different LLMs each given different capabilities and prompts, each able to communicate with others. Now imagine splitting this network in half, wouldn't the resulting adjustment look similar to a split brain patient in humans? Are "you" possibly just the LLM that has been given control over the speech and other intentional body actions?
    - verisimi 3y ago
      > I've spent no small amount of time thinking about my own mind and thought patterns, but I've never thought I was special. I don't see how that can be. You have no experience of anyone else subjectively. For all you know, you could be a 'brain in a jar' with inputs coming in via wires, other people could be part of the illusion. The only thing you can say you know is your own present experience - it is infinitely special. Sure, when you consider yourself objectively, you appear to be like one of so many people. But, there's no getting away from the fact your own experience is infinitely special to you. And it has meaning/value to you because of emotions. Animals seem to, but these are not at the same level. Machines give no indication of emotions. AIs appear to have emotions, but this is a simulation/illusion - like those medieval wooden toys, but better. > I can understand people entirely different to myself so I can empathize and work with them. This is a form of projection, imo. You have no idea about what is going on inside others. You only have appearance to guide you. > Honestly the more I see from LLMs the more it makes me think that we are much the same. If you take a purely objective, materialistic viewpoint, why not consider it the other way - that we ourselves are a sort of AI, our hardware being wetware/bodies - just mechanistic. Do you think you are an AI? (As was illustrated in Westworld?)
      - ben_w 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>"the value in our experiences come from our emotions and feelings - not mere inputs that we label as 'emotions' and 'feelings' as would be the case for an ai." </sarcasm> Because humans have emotions, but not just what we 'label as emotions' but you know, 'real' emotions, not like those AI emotions. So basically, you are arguing for a non-logic assumption that humans have souls, Machines can't, and we should just take that as gospel and move on.

verisimi 3y ago
Do you not think your experience, 'personal processing' is special? That while you can perhaps imagine other people having similar experiences, your own experience is unique and not just the inevitable output of your 'wetware' and its inputs to date? That you observe reality and yourself and choose parts to change on account of your feelings and intuitions? I do think the materialistic idea that we are a sort of computer, with hardware (the body) and software (the mind) is a brilliant metaphor... but like any metaphor it is only so useful. Many people nowadays believe this metaphor to be literal. However, it is too mechanistic and does cannot account for subjective intangibles which is where all the value of life is, eg boredom, excitement, joy. Ie life is occurring in the experiences of the 'computer operator' in the metaphor.
- ninjanomnom 3y ago
  I've spent no small amount of time thinking about my own mind and thought patterns, but I've never thought I was special. When I work to understand myself and others, it feels like putting together rules for some slowly changing system with complex enough inner workings to be nearly random in some cases. Even so, I can understand people entirely different to myself so I can empathize and work with them. Honestly the more I see from LLMs the more it makes me think that we are much the same. Imagine a network of many different LLMs each given different capabilities and prompts, each able to communicate with others. Now imagine splitting this network in half, wouldn't the resulting adjustment look similar to a split brain patient in humans? Are "you" possibly just the LLM that has been given control over the speech and other intentional body actions?
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > I've spent no small amount of time thinking about my own mind and thought patterns, but I've never thought I was special. I don't see how that can be. You have no experience of anyone else subjectively. For all you know, you could be a 'brain in a jar' with inputs coming in via wires, other people could be part of the illusion. The only thing you can say you know is your own present experience - it is infinitely special. Sure, when you consider yourself objectively, you appear to be like one of so many people. But, there's no getting away from the fact your own experience is infinitely special to you. And it has meaning/value to you because of emotions. Animals seem to, but these are not at the same level. Machines give no indication of emotions. AIs appear to have emotions, but this is a simulation/illusion - like those medieval wooden toys, but better. > I can understand people entirely different to myself so I can empathize and work with them. This is a form of projection, imo. You have no idea about what is going on inside others. You only have appearance to guide you. > Honestly the more I see from LLMs the more it makes me think that we are much the same. If you take a purely objective, materialistic viewpoint, why not consider it the other way - that we ourselves are a sort of AI, our hardware being wetware/bodies - just mechanistic. Do you think you are an AI? (As was illustrated in Westworld?)
    - ben_w 3y ago