First, please read Bernie's excellent thread on AI.
-
@cstross Yeah, I was compressing a lot into that line.
I don’t know how to work out how people from pre-industrial times would have seen it. Did they think they were a soul controlling puppet? When did we decide the brain was the seat of reason?
@Colman Ancient Egyptian beliefs about the soul and the afterlife are *fascinating* (and bits of Xtianity came from them—the Cult of Isis and her participation in the resurrection of Osiris shows through the Virgin Mary, for example). In particular, there were EIGHT different "souls" associated with different aspects of one person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul
-
While I have a tremendous affection for Turing, I've never accepted his 'test' as being proof of anything beyond our own desire to discern bunnies in cloud formations.
@Remittancegirl @craigduncan My take on this isn't that LLMs passed the Turing Test. It's that human beings failed it.
-
@cstross Yeah, I was compressing a lot into that line.
I don’t know how to work out how people from pre-industrial times would have seen it. Did they think they were a soul controlling puppet? When did we decide the brain was the seat of reason?
-
@Colman Ancient Egyptian beliefs about the soul and the afterlife are *fascinating* (and bits of Xtianity came from them—the Cult of Isis and her participation in the resurrection of Osiris shows through the Virgin Mary, for example). In particular, there were EIGHT different "souls" associated with different aspects of one person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_conception_of_the_soul
@cstross daoism only has seven as far as I understand it.
-
@Remittancegirl @craigduncan My take on this isn't that LLMs passed the Turing Test. It's that human beings failed it.
Yes. Humans have all the conscious agency and ability to be fooled. The test is relational but wouldn't exist without humans being the benchmark. Flexible language also allows us to say "this machine fooled person X..."
-
So this idea that there can be an actual AI, that there can be an unembodied consciousness, is the most outrageous of all delusions.
Because there can be no real intelligence, no real consciousness, without finitude. And there can be no tiny glint of the real behind, beneath, at the edges of our magnificent imaginations, or the production of the infinitely elaborate symbolic world of language we are immersed in, without it being produced by a body that will one day stop being. 5/
@Remittancegirl There are really two different things being discussed: first, creating an intelligence that sets its own agenda and purpose. Second, uploading our own agenda and purpose into a new physical architecture. The first gives rise to the obvious question of what purpose? Our own purpose is driven by the evolution via survival of our physical bodies. Even at our most enlightened we are slaves to our need to breathe, drink and expel toxins. 1/
-
In a wider sense we are concerned with the survival of others like us and we are looking to these speculative creations to help that to continue. But why would they be interested in that? There are lots of examples of different types of living organisms helping other and some where one type is exploited by another at great detriment to its own functionality. Are we looking to be a parasite of these intelligences or work in symbiosis? If the latter, what are we offering? 2/
And this is where the second thing comes in: uploading our minds. To fully shake off the physical limitations of our bodies, we need a structure capable of holding an intelligence with purpose then we embed our own purpose within it. Great, except our purpose outside of our body’s and other bodies’ needs is very unclear. We can speculate, and writers have, but would uploaded minds be benevolent overlords, ruthless tyrants or simply uninterested in other meat bound beings? 3/3
-
@Remittancegirl There are really two different things being discussed: first, creating an intelligence that sets its own agenda and purpose. Second, uploading our own agenda and purpose into a new physical architecture. The first gives rise to the obvious question of what purpose? Our own purpose is driven by the evolution via survival of our physical bodies. Even at our most enlightened we are slaves to our need to breathe, drink and expel toxins. 1/
In a wider sense we are concerned with the survival of others like us and we are looking to these speculative creations to help that to continue. But why would they be interested in that? There are lots of examples of different types of living organisms helping other and some where one type is exploited by another at great detriment to its own functionality. Are we looking to be a parasite of these intelligences or work in symbiosis? If the latter, what are we offering? 2/
-
And this is where the second thing comes in: uploading our minds. To fully shake off the physical limitations of our bodies, we need a structure capable of holding an intelligence with purpose then we embed our own purpose within it. Great, except our purpose outside of our body’s and other bodies’ needs is very unclear. We can speculate, and writers have, but would uploaded minds be benevolent overlords, ruthless tyrants or simply uninterested in other meat bound beings? 3/3
@seb321 in what way would/could they be the same mind? You’d need to upload (a faithful model of) the entire body as far as I can see.
(And a faithful environment for it to be in, at which point what have you done, exactly?)
-
@seb321 in what way would/could they be the same mind? You’d need to upload (a faithful model of) the entire body as far as I can see.
(And a faithful environment for it to be in, at which point what have you done, exactly?)
@Colman I suppose that’s one option, but it still won’t be the same mind. Really, continuity of self is an illusion we maintain. I’m not the same person I was 40 years ago. I’m not even sure we’d get along particularly well! That’s why I talk about purpose. We tend to think of higher purpose: discovery & exploration, solving complex problems, creation of art and design. We might set AI off on those paths but it will no more be us than a car is us because it takes us to a destination.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
