3 ms·

I'm not really concerned with the philosophical debate of what conscience is. Is a simulation of a car, the same thing as an actual car? Most people will proba

I'm not really concerned with the philosophical debate of what conscience is. Is a simulation of a car, the same thing as an actual car? Most people will probably say no, some might say "it depends on the accuracy". I say who the hell cares? I care about the human experience because I am human, and therefore I care about things that affect humans, because they affect me. I have empathy, so I can extend that consideration to non-human beings that experience *similar biological processes*. I know what pain feels like, and I don't like it, so I'd rather this other thing not feel it either, because that makes me feel bad. I do not care about a pile of tensor multiplications, at all. If it is conscious, great, maybe it can finally follow instructions properly, which is its only purpose.

coliveira 26d ago
Some people are interested in making sure these simulations have the same status of humans, and some others want to make gods of them. That's the problem.
Certhas 26d ago
Your car analogy is very, very confused. If a simulation of a car can get you from A to B, requires the same steering, fuel and servicing, gives you the same tactile feedback, is it a car? Of course "I care about humans because I am human" is a self-consistent position to take. But now you need to decide if you want to consider a full simulation that faithfully reproduces everything that physically happens between our ears as human. After all I might very well implement this simulation using a bunch of tensor multiplications in an autoregressive setup...
- sirwhinesalot 26d ago
  > If a simulation of a car can get you from A to B, requires the same steering, fuel and servicing, gives you the same tactile feedback, is it a car? No, because a simulation of a car cannot get me from A to B. No matter how accurate you make it, I can't get to my supermarket with it, because it's just a bunch of math on a computer. It's an interesting sort of self-defeating position, the whole "simulation of human consciousness = human consciousness", because it simultaneously attempts to devalue the human experience, while also elevating the importance of a particular human brain process. A robot running a simulation of the human mind is a robot, not a human.

coliveira 26d ago

Some people are interested in making sure these simulations have the same status of humans, and some others want to make gods of them. That's the problem.

Certhas 26d ago

Your car analogy is very, very confused. If a simulation of a car can get you from A to B, requires the same steering, fuel and servicing, gives you the same tactile feedback, is it a car? Of course "I care about humans because I am human" is a self-consistent position to take. But now you need to decide if you want to consider a full simulation that faithfully reproduces everything that physically happens between our ears as human. After all I might very well implement this simulation using a bunch of tensor multiplications in an autoregressive setup...

sirwhinesalot 26d ago
> If a simulation of a car can get you from A to B, requires the same steering, fuel and servicing, gives you the same tactile feedback, is it a car? No, because a simulation of a car cannot get me from A to B. No matter how accurate you make it, I can't get to my supermarket with it, because it's just a bunch of math on a computer. It's an interesting sort of self-defeating position, the whole "simulation of human consciousness = human consciousness", because it simultaneously attempts to devalue the human experience, while also elevating the importance of a particular human brain process. A robot running a simulation of the human mind is a robot, not a human.