4 ms·

I don't even know if consciousness can be achieved from computation. Consider xkcd 505 [0]. Would you consider the inhabitants of that simulated universe consci

by ghssds 1y ago

I don't even know if consciousness can be achieved from computation. Consider xkcd 505 [0]. Would you consider the inhabitants of that simulated universe conscious? 0: https://xkcd.com/505/ https://xkcd.com/505/

nis0s 1y ago
I can’t comment on the comic because I can’t read it well on my phone. But I am of the view that consciousness can be achieved through silicon-process computation if there are emergent properties which can convert discrete feature processing into perceptual experience. Therefore, I don’t think AI can ever achieve consciousness in a disembodied form (brain in a vat hypothesis), as I don’t think that’s how higher-level consciousness works. Okay, I read the comic on my computer. If agents in the simulated universe possess higher-level consciousness, then they're no different from us. Maybe the timescale of their perceptual experience is different from ours. We need to be careful, though, about fooling ourselves into thinking there is a conscious being where there might just be a faithful imitation. How do you tell the difference? I think this is a useful concept, even though I think it has its flaws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
xyzzy123 1y ago
I'm not sure if the question is answerable given that consciousness is not well defined enough for everyone to agree on whether, say, a fly is conscious. Instead maybe we can think about the system that comprises us, the models, anthropic, and society at large etc and ask which kinds of actions lead to better moral / ethical outcomes for this larger system. I also believe it helps to consider specific situations rather than to ask if x or y is "worthy" of moral consideration.[1] For the NPCs in games thing I am honestly still unpacking it, but I genuinely think no harm is done. The reason is that the intent of the user is not to cause harm or suffering to another "being". It seems like people are surprisingly robust at distinguishing between fantasy and reality in that scenario. We can notice that drone operators get PTSD / moral injury at fairly high rates while FPS players don't, even though at a surface level the pixels are the same. I do think a drone operator who believed they were killing, even though the whole thing was secretly a simulation, could be injured by "killing" an NPC. [1] Dichotomies / assigning utilitarian "worth" etc without broader consideration of the situation and kind of world we want seems to result in essays full of repugnant conclusions where the author's "gotcha" is that if we assign any value at all to the life of a shrimp in any situation, we have to fill the entire light cone with them as rapidly as possible or some such nonsense. [To be clear, this is undesirable from my perspective].

by ghssds 1y ago

nis0s 1y ago

I can’t comment on the comic because I can’t read it well on my phone. But I am of the view that consciousness can be achieved through silicon-process computation if there are emergent properties which can convert discrete feature processing into perceptual experience. Therefore, I don’t think AI can ever achieve consciousness in a disembodied form (brain in a vat hypothesis), as I don’t think that’s how higher-level consciousness works. Okay, I read the comic on my computer. If agents in the simulated universe possess higher-level consciousness, then they're no different from us. Maybe the timescale of their perceptual experience is different from ours. We need to be careful, though, about fooling ourselves into thinking there is a conscious being where there might just be a faithful imitation. How do you tell the difference? I think this is a useful concept, even though I think it has its flaws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

xyzzy123 1y ago

I'm not sure if the question is answerable given that consciousness is not well defined enough for everyone to agree on whether, say, a fly is conscious. Instead maybe we can think about the system that comprises us, the models, anthropic, and society at large etc and ask which kinds of actions lead to better moral / ethical outcomes for this larger system. I also believe it helps to consider specific situations rather than to ask if x or y is "worthy" of moral consideration.[1] For the NPCs in games thing I am honestly still unpacking it, but I genuinely think no harm is done. The reason is that the intent of the user is not to cause harm or suffering to another "being". It seems like people are surprisingly robust at distinguishing between fantasy and reality in that scenario. We can notice that drone operators get PTSD / moral injury at fairly high rates while FPS players don't, even though at a surface level the pixels are the same. I do think a drone operator who believed they were killing, even though the whole thing was secretly a simulation, could be injured by "killing" an NPC. [1] Dichotomies / assigning utilitarian "worth" etc without broader consideration of the situation and kind of world we want seems to result in essays full of repugnant conclusions where the author's "gotcha" is that if we assign any value at all to the life of a shrimp in any situation, we have to fill the entire light cone with them as rapidly as possible or some such nonsense. [To be clear, this is undesirable from my perspective].