3 ms·

One problem is this: if we somehow manage to produce an actual consciousness, can we turn that computer off, or even a portion of whatever system it resides on,

One problem is this: if we somehow manage to produce an actual consciousness, can we turn that computer off, or even a portion of whatever system it resides on, without killing it? We can't just arbitrarily end human life (though it does happen). Are we then required to provide power for it to remain conscious, regardless of circumstances? We often keep people "alive" despite the non-viability of that life. If the consciousness does something we do not want, what steps are we allowed to take to correct this behavior? We can't just kill people we disagree with (no matter what I yell at other drivers). Is this thing a person? A pet? Property? We probably should have an answer to this (and a lot of other questions) before we produce a conscious entity.

ForceBru 1y ago
We (the general "layman" population) don't even known what "consciousness" is, I think. Yet we routinely kill thousands (millions?) of fish, millions of chickens, pigs etc. Not to mention bugs. We make ZERO effort to see if they have consciousness, yet we "turn them off" on a daily basis. So of course we can turn that "conscious computer" off, no problem! Simply declare that it's NOT conscious enough and "doesn't feel pain" and shut it down.
- drivingmenuts 1y ago
  This isn't about animals, that's an entirely different problem. We are attempting to create a thing that can meaningfully communicate with us, in our language. We're not trying to create animals, or the equivalent - we are attempting to make a human analogue. Perhaps (hopefully) after I'm long gone, society might address the issue of food animals, but we need to address the concept of AIs now to set guidelines for future development, training and usage. We aren't building dogs here, we're trying to make something between a dog and a human (without being a hybrid man-dog). We should set standards for what they can be trained as and how those trained models are used for, and especially, who is responsible for failure at each step.

ForceBru 1y ago

We (the general "layman" population) don't even known what "consciousness" is, I think. Yet we routinely kill thousands (millions?) of fish, millions of chickens, pigs etc. Not to mention bugs. We make ZERO effort to see if they have consciousness, yet we "turn them off" on a daily basis. So of course we can turn that "conscious computer" off, no problem! Simply declare that it's NOT conscious enough and "doesn't feel pain" and shut it down.

drivingmenuts 1y ago
This isn't about animals, that's an entirely different problem. We are attempting to create a thing that can meaningfully communicate with us, in our language. We're not trying to create animals, or the equivalent - we are attempting to make a human analogue. Perhaps (hopefully) after I'm long gone, society might address the issue of food animals, but we need to address the concept of AIs now to set guidelines for future development, training and usage. We aren't building dogs here, we're trying to make something between a dog and a human (without being a hybrid man-dog). We should set standards for what they can be trained as and how those trained models are used for, and especially, who is responsible for failure at each step.