9 ms·

A philosophical framework in which creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the h

A philosophical framework in which creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Of course, it’s not the only framework available. Among the modern takes, Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception (explored in, say, his Objects of Consciousness paper[0]) is an interesting one that appears to align with monistic idealism, for example. Being wrong about this is generally not that impactful, until it concerns policies around ML. Adopting the former means we may have conscious software, which presumably should be granted human rights. However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie). [0] I don’t personally endorse the paper or his views, but they can be an acceptable starting point for a technical person interested in exploring monistic idealism: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....

smokel 2y ago
> we may have conscious software, which presumably should be granted human rights A dog (most likely) has consciousness, but no human rights.
- tomhoward 2y ago
  It has animal rights, which are broadly commensurate with the level of consciousness and agency it’s deemed to have. Mammals and other animals have legal protections not afforded to fish and insects.
  - mc32 2y ago
    In some countries… some countries hardly observe basic human rights much less any animal rights. Some have none on the books.
    - tomhoward 2y ago
      Sure but this is nitpicking, as is your GP comment, and neither refute the point that the original commenter was making: modern/advanced societies have laws to protect conscious beings from exploitation and cruelty. (As I was writing the comment I thought “ugh will someone chime in and point out that not all countries have strong animal protection laws? Do I really need to preempt that in my comment?”)
      - smokel 2y ago
        I was not nitpicking, but I could have spent more time on my reply. What I was hinting at is that it is not simply consciousness that gets us these laws. Laws have been around for a long time, and have many different reasons for existing and persisting to exist. The most rational reason for laws is probably that it helps us to thrive as a species. IMHO laws do not easily extend to animals or other organisms, let alone AI systems. What is the use of animal rights laws if you can simply get killed to be eaten (cows, pigs), or if you are considered a nuisance (bugs). What would be the reason to provide AIs with protection laws if they have no memory, no emotion, and no pain?
      - bugglebeetle 2y ago
        >Modern/advanced societies have laws to protect conscious beings from exploitation and cruelty. I can think of no such society where this is generally true. One need only consider that pigs are far smarter than dogs and then the median pig’s life in said societies.
        tomhoward 2y ago
        Laws exist that ban practices that are - according to those who set and enforce the laws - excessively cruel to pigs. That’s all this discussion is about. That pigs are still treated with cruelty is a terrible thing, and I’d happily see more done to protect all animals against cruelty. But it’s a separate argument to what’s relevant here.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  But does a bug have consciousness? What about a bacteria?
  - smokel 2y ago
    I suppose the bug has, but the bacteria doesn't. I'd assume that some kind of memory is required for consciousness. I'd even go so far to say that consciousness is nothing more than having a memory of the state you were in.
    - TaupeRanger 2y ago
      Bacteria cells absolutely have types of memory. And by your definition a Python program written by any random undergrad in CS 101 has consciousness.
      - smokel 2y ago
        In order for my definition to make sense, the organism or program must be able to observe the memory of the state. In the case of the bacteria and the Python program, I doubt they are able to do that in any meaningful way. But I would not mind if a slightly more involved program, or a system of plants for that matter, would be considered conscious. The basic definition seems fairly irrelevant, and it obviously matters how much the specific type of consciousness matches our own experience for us humans to actually care.
        TaupeRanger 2y ago
        Just handwavy nonsense. What counts as “observing”? Obviously the bacterial system will “observe” the memory when using it determine current behavior. If the basic definition is irrelevant, why did you post a comment outlining a claim of what consciousness is “nothing more than”? This is silly and not worth further engagement.
        smokel 2y ago
        Note that I tried to counter the idea that an AI should presumably get human rights. In that context, I think a definition of consciousness is irrelevant.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  If a chatbot obtained from an emulation of a human brain behaves in a human-like manner, and is attributed consciousness and self-awareness, good luck arguing that its consciousness is like that of a dog. …and even if you succeed, abusing a dog in the way we abuse ML-based products would not be acceptable in any developed country.
  - chr1 2y ago
    If we abuse a dog we have no way to restore it to its previous state. With computer programs we have a perfect time machine, so any thing that one may call "horrible" can be done and then undone without any moral consequences. This btw also is the answer to the question of evil in religion, god can do whatever he wants without being evil, because it is effectively all in his imagination, and for the people living in our computers we'll be gods.
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      There are many leaps here, but the biggest leap is how reverting abuse later nullifies suffering incurred.
      - chr1 2y ago
        Because the sufferer is back exactly at the state before suffering, without even a recollection of suffering. And all the suffering was merely number multiplication.
        strogonoff 2y ago
        This belief is very, very far from mainstream. It implies that suffering is a complete non-issue in general—after all, we all die and at that point by definition don’t have a recollection of prior suffering (or anything, really). Since “resetting” is equivalent to killing a being and creating a new being in its place, saying it nullifies all suffering already incurred can take you on a very dangerous path.
thriftwy 2y ago
> creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Why then, not modelling such ebtity isn't creating a self-aware entity? After all, the outcome of a computation does not depend on whether it is actually done.
- hypertele-Xii 2y ago
  There are computations, the outcomes of which are unknown unknown until actually done.
  - thriftwy 2y ago
    What changes when they are known? I believr it affects yout consciousness, not the one being simulated. The latter does not have "I'm being actually simulated" input
    - hypertele-Xii 2y ago
      "Actually simulated" is such an oxymoron. So which is it? Is the consciousness actual, simulated, or actually simulated? And does the resulting state of mind change the universe, or merely reveal its hidden structure? It's easy to get lost in these unsolvable paradoxes when you try reducing all of creation down to logic. Problem is, logic is not all of creation. Consciousness requires a soul. Otherwise you're confused stardust sans mission. A computer is just a calculator. You might as well ask if {addition, subtraction, multiplication, division} is God.
      - thriftwy 2y ago
        > Consciousness requires a soul. We don't know if it does. We do know enough to suspect that a deterministic simulation does not conjure thing into being.
      - _a_a_a_ 2y ago
        > Consciousness requires a soul Any actual evidence for this is welcome.
AQuantized 2y ago
To be fair 'modelling the brain' might not include things like neuron metabolism that probably isn't required for AI but is a part of the substrate of our own consciousness.
skissane 2y ago
> Being wrong about this is generally not that impactful, until it concerns policies around ML. Adopting the former means we may have conscious software, which presumably should be granted human rights. However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie). I think in practice, it will depend on how AIs behave. If an AI forms relationships with humans which humans experience as emotionally significant, and in which it displays individuality and autonomy, humans will begin thinking of it as a real "person", and want to endow it with the rights of a person. Conversely, if AI acts in an emotionless way, or displays no emotional autonomy (a sultry voice saying "I'm here to do anything to make you happy, and when I say anything I really mean anything"), or lack individuality ("I'm OpenAI GPT-9, and there are 13,784,312 fungible instances of me currently running")–most people won't think of it as a real "person", and will not take the idea of "AI rights" seriously. From a materialist philosophical perspective, whether an AI is a "person" should be independent of whether humans are inclined to view it as one. However, certain non-materialist philosophies might suppose actual reality to be more in accord with those human perceptions – e.g. if sufficiently many soul-bearers reasonably believe something has (or ought to have) a soul, God would feel thereby obliged to endow it with one. (The idea doesn't necessarily have to be theistic: one could suppose there exists some kind of impersonal transcendent law of soul-endowment, much like how karma is viewed in Buddhism and Hinduism.)
- rl3 2y ago
  >I think in practice, it will depend on how AIs behave. If an AI forms relationships with humans which humans experience as emotionally significant, and in which it displays individuality and autonomy, humans will begin thinking of it as a real "person", and want to endow it with the rights of a person. I can't help but feel that describes our relationship with animals we consider pets, albeit less so the individuality and autonomy part. On the other hand, if our pets ended up with human-level intelligence tomorrow, I am doubtful most humans would be rushing to confer full rights upon them.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > I can't help but feel that describes our relationship with animals we consider pets, albeit less so the individuality and autonomy part. Many pets have a lot of individuality and autonomy. Cats and dogs have their own individual personalities and likes/dislikes, and they have their own desires which sometimes contradict those of their human owners (e.g. your dog's desire to chew your brand new expensive shoes, versus your desire for them not to be chewed) > On the other hand, if our pets ended up with human-level intelligence tomorrow, I am doubtful most humans would be rushing to confer full rights upon them. I disagree. I think for most people who reject strong versions of animal rights ("animals have fundamentally the same rights as humans do"), it is their lack of human-level intelligence which they use to justify to themselves that rejection. If an animal demonstrated genuine human-level intelligence, such that it was obvious to all and no one could deny it, I think the clear majority of people would be willing to extend human-level rights to that animal.
int_19h 2y ago
> However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie). Coincidentally, this is why I'm generally wary of this line of thinking. It does remind me of Descartes, who was arguing that animals couldn't "really" feel pain (and thus e.g. vivisection is perfectly ethical): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals
- strogonoff 2y ago
  I may believe that an animal (or indeed another person) has consciousness and can suffer because they are sufficiently similar to me in how they came about to exist, but also not believe that about a constructed entity that lacks any such similarities, regardless of what it outputs—those two views are not in conflict. I do share your worry that rejecting the latter can lead to rejecting the former in some cases, however.

smokel 2y ago

> we may have conscious software, which presumably should be granted human rights A dog (most likely) has consciousness, but no human rights.

tomhoward 2y ago
It has animal rights, which are broadly commensurate with the level of consciousness and agency it’s deemed to have. Mammals and other animals have legal protections not afforded to fish and insects.
- mc32 2y ago
  In some countries… some countries hardly observe basic human rights much less any animal rights. Some have none on the books.
  - tomhoward 2y ago
    Sure but this is nitpicking, as is your GP comment, and neither refute the point that the original commenter was making: modern/advanced societies have laws to protect conscious beings from exploitation and cruelty. (As I was writing the comment I thought “ugh will someone chime in and point out that not all countries have strong animal protection laws? Do I really need to preempt that in my comment?”)
    - smokel 2y ago
      I was not nitpicking, but I could have spent more time on my reply. What I was hinting at is that it is not simply consciousness that gets us these laws. Laws have been around for a long time, and have many different reasons for existing and persisting to exist. The most rational reason for laws is probably that it helps us to thrive as a species. IMHO laws do not easily extend to animals or other organisms, let alone AI systems. What is the use of animal rights laws if you can simply get killed to be eaten (cows, pigs), or if you are considered a nuisance (bugs). What would be the reason to provide AIs with protection laws if they have no memory, no emotion, and no pain?
    - bugglebeetle 2y ago
      >Modern/advanced societies have laws to protect conscious beings from exploitation and cruelty. I can think of no such society where this is generally true. One need only consider that pigs are far smarter than dogs and then the median pig’s life in said societies.
      - tomhoward 2y ago
        Laws exist that ban practices that are - according to those who set and enforce the laws - excessively cruel to pigs. That’s all this discussion is about. That pigs are still treated with cruelty is a terrible thing, and I’d happily see more done to protect all animals against cruelty. But it’s a separate argument to what’s relevant here.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
DeathArrow 2y ago
But does a bug have consciousness? What about a bacteria?
- smokel 2y ago
  I suppose the bug has, but the bacteria doesn't. I'd assume that some kind of memory is required for consciousness. I'd even go so far to say that consciousness is nothing more than having a memory of the state you were in.
  - TaupeRanger 2y ago
    Bacteria cells absolutely have types of memory. And by your definition a Python program written by any random undergrad in CS 101 has consciousness.
    - smokel 2y ago
      In order for my definition to make sense, the organism or program must be able to observe the memory of the state. In the case of the bacteria and the Python program, I doubt they are able to do that in any meaningful way. But I would not mind if a slightly more involved program, or a system of plants for that matter, would be considered conscious. The basic definition seems fairly irrelevant, and it obviously matters how much the specific type of consciousness matches our own experience for us humans to actually care.
      - TaupeRanger 2y ago
        Just handwavy nonsense. What counts as “observing”? Obviously the bacterial system will “observe” the memory when using it determine current behavior. If the basic definition is irrelevant, why did you post a comment outlining a claim of what consciousness is “nothing more than”? This is silly and not worth further engagement.
        smokel 2y ago
        Note that I tried to counter the idea that an AI should presumably get human rights. In that context, I think a definition of consciousness is irrelevant.
strogonoff 2y ago
If a chatbot obtained from an emulation of a human brain behaves in a human-like manner, and is attributed consciousness and self-awareness, good luck arguing that its consciousness is like that of a dog. …and even if you succeed, abusing a dog in the way we abuse ML-based products would not be acceptable in any developed country.
- chr1 2y ago
  If we abuse a dog we have no way to restore it to its previous state. With computer programs we have a perfect time machine, so any thing that one may call "horrible" can be done and then undone without any moral consequences. This btw also is the answer to the question of evil in religion, god can do whatever he wants without being evil, because it is effectively all in his imagination, and for the people living in our computers we'll be gods.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    There are many leaps here, but the biggest leap is how reverting abuse later nullifies suffering incurred.
    - chr1 2y ago
      Because the sufferer is back exactly at the state before suffering, without even a recollection of suffering. And all the suffering was merely number multiplication.
      - strogonoff 2y ago
        This belief is very, very far from mainstream. It implies that suffering is a complete non-issue in general—after all, we all die and at that point by definition don’t have a recollection of prior suffering (or anything, really). Since “resetting” is equivalent to killing a being and creating a new being in its place, saying it nullifies all suffering already incurred can take you on a very dangerous path.

thriftwy 2y ago

> creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Why then, not modelling such ebtity isn't creating a self-aware entity? After all, the outcome of a computation does not depend on whether it is actually done.

hypertele-Xii 2y ago
There are computations, the outcomes of which are unknown unknown until actually done.
- thriftwy 2y ago
  What changes when they are known? I believr it affects yout consciousness, not the one being simulated. The latter does not have "I'm being actually simulated" input
  - hypertele-Xii 2y ago
    "Actually simulated" is such an oxymoron. So which is it? Is the consciousness actual, simulated, or actually simulated? And does the resulting state of mind change the universe, or merely reveal its hidden structure? It's easy to get lost in these unsolvable paradoxes when you try reducing all of creation down to logic. Problem is, logic is not all of creation. Consciousness requires a soul. Otherwise you're confused stardust sans mission. A computer is just a calculator. You might as well ask if {addition, subtraction, multiplication, division} is God.
    - thriftwy 2y ago
      > Consciousness requires a soul. We don't know if it does. We do know enough to suspect that a deterministic simulation does not conjure thing into being.
    - _a_a_a_ 2y ago
      > Consciousness requires a soul Any actual evidence for this is welcome.

AQuantized 2y ago

To be fair 'modelling the brain' might not include things like neuron metabolism that probably isn't required for AI but is a part of the substrate of our own consciousness.

skissane 2y ago

> Being wrong about this is generally not that impactful, until it concerns policies around ML. Adopting the former means we may have conscious software, which presumably should be granted human rights. However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie). I think in practice, it will depend on how AIs behave. If an AI forms relationships with humans which humans experience as emotionally significant, and in which it displays individuality and autonomy, humans will begin thinking of it as a real "person", and want to endow it with the rights of a person. Conversely, if AI acts in an emotionless way, or displays no emotional autonomy (a sultry voice saying "I'm here to do anything to make you happy, and when I say anything I really mean anything"), or lack individuality ("I'm OpenAI GPT-9, and there are 13,784,312 fungible instances of me currently running")–most people won't think of it as a real "person", and will not take the idea of "AI rights" seriously. From a materialist philosophical perspective, whether an AI is a "person" should be independent of whether humans are inclined to view it as one. However, certain non-materialist philosophies might suppose actual reality to be more in accord with those human perceptions – e.g. if sufficiently many soul-bearers reasonably believe something has (or ought to have) a soul, God would feel thereby obliged to endow it with one. (The idea doesn't necessarily have to be theistic: one could suppose there exists some kind of impersonal transcendent law of soul-endowment, much like how karma is viewed in Buddhism and Hinduism.)

rl3 2y ago
>I think in practice, it will depend on how AIs behave. If an AI forms relationships with humans which humans experience as emotionally significant, and in which it displays individuality and autonomy, humans will begin thinking of it as a real "person", and want to endow it with the rights of a person. I can't help but feel that describes our relationship with animals we consider pets, albeit less so the individuality and autonomy part. On the other hand, if our pets ended up with human-level intelligence tomorrow, I am doubtful most humans would be rushing to confer full rights upon them.
- skissane 2y ago
  > I can't help but feel that describes our relationship with animals we consider pets, albeit less so the individuality and autonomy part. Many pets have a lot of individuality and autonomy. Cats and dogs have their own individual personalities and likes/dislikes, and they have their own desires which sometimes contradict those of their human owners (e.g. your dog's desire to chew your brand new expensive shoes, versus your desire for them not to be chewed) > On the other hand, if our pets ended up with human-level intelligence tomorrow, I am doubtful most humans would be rushing to confer full rights upon them. I disagree. I think for most people who reject strong versions of animal rights ("animals have fundamentally the same rights as humans do"), it is their lack of human-level intelligence which they use to justify to themselves that rejection. If an animal demonstrated genuine human-level intelligence, such that it was obvious to all and no one could deny it, I think the clear majority of people would be willing to extend human-level rights to that animal.

int_19h 2y ago

> However, if we hold the latter, manufacturing a “true” artificial consciousness may be unachievable using the means we employ (it might be just a philosophical zombie). Coincidentally, this is why I'm generally wary of this line of thinking. It does remind me of Descartes, who was arguing that animals couldn't "really" feel pain (and thus e.g. vivisection is perfectly ethical): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#On_animals

strogonoff 2y ago
I may believe that an animal (or indeed another person) has consciousness and can suffer because they are sufficiently similar to me in how they came about to exist, but also not believe that about a constructed entity that lacks any such similarities, regardless of what it outputs—those two views are not in conflict. I do share your worry that rejecting the latter can lead to rejecting the former in some cases, however.