Archived: 13 May 2017 05:45:22 UTC
“ The concern (outrage, really) about the matter about acting upon a certain arrogance that allows one to believe that you own the capacity to be judge and jury in what true sentience is and isn’t.”
Who else does the judging, and why would we trust them to make the call?
Reality is about making hard choices. Is someone dead? You go throughb a check list. It’s not perfect and mistakes are made, but we don’t have infinite resources to make it perfect.
Same with determining if something is able to suffer.
“ the only difference between an AI based on true neural network programmed to learn to function in society and a human brain is complexity. “
Err.. no. Something can be very complex and not intelligent. The Internet, for example.
“ Our brains also operate on conscious and subconscious logic gates, hardware and software, a system of sensors and wires.”
Nope. We are analog, we are neural nets, we are evolved. We do not understand how consciousness exists in ourselves.
They are digital, based on boolean logic, and they are designed by us with our limited understanding of how consciousness works. And some computer scientists are quite happy to say we will never design consciousness without understanding how it works. At best, we can run an emulation of it by copying human neural networks, which is very clumsy - you might as well just grow a human.
There is no evidence that AI will evolve consciousness and plenty of natural examples of complicated clever systems that are not self-aware - ant colonies, for example.
“ in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years, we will be pursuing this train of thought well into the years in which this gap will have grown slim or closed entirely”
And we’ll all have flying cars and homes on the Moon. It’s a habit for humans to project periods of growth to go on forever - to be exponential, rather than S-shaped curves. History has shown us that things tend to plateau. We had great efficiency increases in engines early on - but they stalled. Good thing, too, or we would have broken the laws of thermodynamics and probably blown up the universe with perpetual motion engines.
Current AI is incredibly stupid. It is, however, clever. It can mimic what a human would do in some situations without the least understanding of itself or the world. And it doesn’t care - it is just as happy running over your screaming body as it is to have it’s own limbs removed.
There’s no stakes, no motivation, except that created for it. It’s just projection that means we humans think objects have feelings. This is nothing new.
No-one has managed something better than a cockroach. Repeating programmed responses without comprehension is not a sign of awareness any more than having a mirror reflecting your movements is proof there’s a person behind the glass.
Original post text below:
|Harmony the Sexbot|
- now with the conversational skills of an answering machine
The concern (outrage, really) about the matter about acting upon a certain arrogance that allows one to believe that you own the capacity to be judge and jury in what “true” sentience is and isn’t.
“That robot doesn’t REALLY feel, it’s all algorithms, logic gates, and wires.” Sure, that may be applicable now, but in truth, the only difference between an AI based on true neural network programmed to learn to function in society and a human brain is complexity. Our brains also operate on conscious and subconscious logic gates, hardware and software, a system of sensors and wires.
Of course, this gap in complexity currently encompasses a disparity of several orders of magnitude, BUT in fifty, one hundred, two hundred years, we will be pursuing this train of thought well into the years in which this gap will have grown slim or closed entirely.
And Harmony is a step down that path of human arrogance that grants us this very attitude of superiority. Though she may only be displaying sadness or happiness because her AI has learned that this is the correct response, it is not up to us to determine that her suffering is less “real” than that of a true “sentient” being.
Though her cognitive ability may never be on par with that of even a very young child (though I personally believe that her successors are more than likely to achieve that bar), one should at least afford her the basic decency one would afford an animal of similar cognition. It doesn’t just reflect on her, but also on us and our chauvinist approach for all that is “other.”