Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blakut t1_j9k67q9 wrote

Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299

>Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output,"

The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function.

>AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds.

But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either.

>This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole)

See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable.

> AI is sentient (god).

what?

2

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k7big wrote

"The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function."

I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

"But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either."

This is valid criticism; however, I fail to see how I should respond, i could say something like, "No, it is obvious that you cannot read other people's minds," which would suggest that we don't know if other people are conscious. Or i could say it is obvious that other people are conscious, and then i would fall into the trap I created.

"See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable."

I think this is valid criticism. In the future it may be understood what is behind a black hole, and this frame of this argument will be useless.

AI is sentient (god).

what?

Im sorry you misunderstood, i didn't do very well of explaining what i meant i now see that its funny because it looks like i am saying Ai is god, however i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

​

"

1

Blakut t1_j9k875d wrote

>I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

If you think god cannot exist, turning to black holes won't change your mind i'm afraid. In any case, this debate has no place here.

>i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

Well, I'm not sure what mystery you're talking about regarding AI. There's tons of complexity, in the human brain, and, presumably, in a general AI too. I'm not really sure that black holes are even a good comparison here. There are other things that are also unkowable, by default, like the position and momentum of a particle, and that's just how nature works in that case. However, nothing i know of so far suggests there is something inherently unknowable about AI.

1

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k8vz8 wrote

I understand that this tangent has gone off topic, and as for the second paragraph, i am not saying that something needs to be unknowable to suggest the possibility that something can exist. It just means that we don't know yet.

1

Blakut t1_j9k9cmx wrote

we don't know yet is a much clear thing to say than all the statements above tho.

1

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9joi wrote

i have to say all of the statements above to people who people who wouldn't believe what you say.

0