New Rumours that AI Has Become Sentient.

[martin-w 3,238]

 

[Antipodeslonghaul 79]

I remember only about one year ago I was having a conversation about AI, I was still mocking any concerns over it. Imagining Terminator robots running around shooting people. But recently I'm starting to take it more seriously. I think it was a news article from the UK about how AI is getting involved in the hiring process of companies, analyzing people's body language, and quite frankly since then it's been giving me the creeps.

[FBW737 512]

"I'm convinced that it won't be long before a computer program will react human level intelligence and also become conscious... the reason I think that its basically certain that there is nothing special going on in neurons that cant be reproduced on a computer, it's just that your brain has a starting advantage of some billion years of evolution and includes a lot of hard wired function other than that it's basically biological machine learning before that was cool."

After a statement like that, I'm not surprised her career is over and she's been reduced to making a living out off Youtube clicks.

[dmwalker 607]

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

I'm not surprised her career is over

Which career?

https://arxiv.org/a/hossenfelder_s_1.html 

"She got famous on YouTube. Now it helps fund her research in quantum gravity"

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/23/1199469798/youtube-star-scientist-sabine-hossenfelder 

Edited March 7 by dmwalker

[SierraHotel 982]

😅😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣Good one, what's the punch line though? But seriously, the day that science acknowledges that conciousness is seperate from mind is the day they take the first step on the road to a true artificial inteligence! Until that day it's just a clever computer algorithm programed by a human being (who still really doesn't know that much). Humanity: too much hubris and far too little knowledge. A I (bold name) is a great tool, and I can't wait for a ChatGPT co-pilot, but that's all it will ever be a tool.

Edited March 7 by SierraHotel

[SierraHotel 982]

3 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

since then it's been giving me the creeps.

The really frightening part is that these idiots are starting to believe it!

[martin-w 3,238]

3 hours ago, FBW737 said:

After a statement like that, I'm not surprised her career is over and she's been reduced to making a living out off Youtube clicks.

 

How is she wrong?

Her carreer is far from over, as said.

[martin-w 3,238]

7 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

the day that science acknowledges that conciousness is seperate from mind

 

You seem very sure of that. So prove it.

How are you defining mind and how are you defining consciousness? How are they separated entities?

Edited March 7 by martin-w

[SierraHotel 982]

3 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

You seem very sure of that. So prove it.

Like you I'm happy to wait until I die, but if you go first feel free to contact me 😉

PS, I am sure, in fact I would bet my life on it 🤣🤣

Edited March 7 by SierraHotel

[martin-w 3,238]

7 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

Like you I'm happy to wait until I die, but if you go first feel free to contact me 😉

 

So you are asking science to acknowledge something you can't prove and have no evidence for. 

How are you defining mind and how are you defining consciousness? How are they seperate entities?

"Mind" is defined as...

 

"The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."

 

So it's the same thing. If you think differently I'd be interested in how?

Edited March 7 by martin-w

[FBW737 512]

12 minutes ago, martin-w said:

So you are asking science to acknowledge something you can't prove

You clearly know nothing about about the scientific method. You cannot prove any hypothesis. Just because a hypothesis has predicted a large number of experimental out comes does not prove the hypothesis. Scientific theories stand of the basis that they have not been disproved. The standard in physics is when the outcome of the experiment does not match what the theory predicts. Proof is a completely abstract concept for use in mathematics and logic only.  It's not up to him to prove his hypothesis. It's up to you to you to disprove it. Good luck with that since if it is the hypothesis that individual conscience persist after the subject is dead the recent science stands in the very highly probably "Yes" camp. Which in turn strongly suggest that there is more to mind, intelligence, self-awareness than neuron activity or sophisticated algorithms trying to mimic it. Of course materialists and/or physicalists hate this because it means there is a duality to reality and that the physical sciences only apply to the physical side of that duality. It rattles their cage so much that they are loath to even keep an open mind. The irony is the more sophisticated the physical sciences become the more closed minded the popular scientists and their disciples get.

[Wildblue 245]

Whatever AI can do in say 30 years, i hope humanity for once shows wisdom in all their coming decisions.
The last 150 years we've been not very wise; the planet is polluted, species disappear because of the billions of humans and their behavior, we plundered the planet.

I believe AI can do good, but i think HW (human wisdom) can do better.

Edited March 7 by charliearon
Removed last part due to that topic is not discussed!

[qqwertz 782]

It really helps that consciousness is so rigorously defined 😉

As for Hossenfelder: yes, she is quite active in her research.

Peter

[FBW737 512]

Yeah, that was a bit mean of me. I usually find her quite agreeable but I'll stand by my assertion the remarks I quoted are complete rubbish she should stick to physics and its critique.

[martin-w 3,238]

11 hours ago, FBW737 said:

You clearly know nothing about about the scientific method.

 

Actually, I think I have a good idea. 

 

11 hours ago, FBW737 said:

You cannot prove any hypothesis.

 

Precisely! And that applies to a theory as well as a hypothesis.  In terms of science, then there is indeed no such thing as proof, in fact (not that I'm an expert) I've spoken about this before on the forum. But he's not a scientist and neither am so we will express ourselves how layman do, and that includes using the word proof from time to time. What's required of course is "evidence" evidence for a claim that was quite definitive, and a definitive claim requires strong evidence in its favor.  

 

11 hours ago, FBW737 said:

It's up to you to you to disprove it.

 

No its not! And you've just made the same mistake!   Science can't prove or disprove anything. 

I should remind you that his statement was definitive, not put forward as a hypothesis. Clearly its something he believes to be true, not a hypothetical suggestion.  

In many explanations mind and consciousness are synonymous. In which case, I ask him to put forward any evidence he has that makes him believe "definitively" that this is not the case. If its just a hypothesis, then fair enough, but again, it wasn't stated that way.  

Edited March 8 by martin-w