Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rumianti6 OP t1_irrynzk wrote

Reply to comment by HeinrichTheWolf_17 in Why does everyone assume that AI will be conscious? by Rumianti6

It really isn't though, I'm not suggesting some magic sauce that makes consciousness possible. Also I never said only humans are capable are consciousness. I was saying due to fundamental and significant differences between life and AI and also because we don't know how consciousness comes about are reasons we should not assume AI will just become conscious.

The argument of consciousness exists therefore AI can be conscious is dumb. It's like saying birds can fly therefore cows can fly.

−23

ChronoPsyche t1_irrzbah wrote

Try making your arguments without calling things "dumb" repeatedly. Doesn't make you sound intelligent.

21

Rumianti6 OP t1_irrzsqo wrote

I mean it is dumb though, do you want me to instead say ignorant, unintelligent, stupid? This isn't some fancy discussion just a simple argument.

−19

ChronoPsyche t1_irs2ac3 wrote

None of them. Make your argument without automatically putting opposing arguments in the category of "dumb/stupid/unintelligent/etc". It makes it sound like you aren't open to the possibility of somebody having a differing perspective that could be correct, which is pretty close-minded when it comes to futurism and the singularity, given how none of us really know for sure what's going to happen.

17

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs3yhe wrote

I'm literally saying that we aren't sure what's going to happen that is my argument.

−7

earthsworld t1_irst5rz wrote

the only dumb thing in this thread are your replies.

5

MassiveIndependence8 t1_irs6pkg wrote

> It’s like saying birds can fly therefore cows can fly.

Nope, that’s false equivalence. It’s like saying birds can fly therefore it’s possible to make a machine that could fly.

13

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs8d0h wrote

And you are misinterpreting my example it isn't literal. The point was to say that AI and life are fundamentally different. More accurately it is like saying you can make a machine fly by just giving it a bunch of legs on top of each other and saying that is will fly eventually.

I already know you are not going to interpret what I'm saying correctly so just give me the next brain dead argument.

−5

thevictater t1_irt5bot wrote

Yeah but different how?? You're putting consciousness on a pedestal in one breath and saying we don't understand it in the next. So which is it? By your logic it is dumb to assume either way.

But most people think AI can be conscious because it seems very possible that consciousness is just a product of a neural network of a certain size. Seems fair to me. Even still, no one can say with absolute certainty, so there's not much point in arguing about it or calling anything dumb.

7

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_irs0q6e wrote

When did I imply that you ever did though? Self Awareness being computational means human beings set a precedent, our brain being a self aware machine goes to show that evolution was able to give rise to something that was able to recognize itself.

> The argument of consciousness exists therefore AI can be conscious is dumb. It's like saying birds can fly therefore cows can fly.

Those aren’t even close to the same comparison, cows cannot fly because they have dense bone structure, birds fly because their bones barely weigh anything and they are able to generate enough lift to pull themselves off the ground, this is an engineering difference. Consciousness isn’t a trait unique to humans or any one animal, we see it in Elephants, Dogs, Horses, Chimps, Bonobos, Dolphins, Whales and many others.

Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory? It’s a model that has consciousness form from a set of parameters in combination with one another. This makes sense because babies aren’t as self aware as children or adults but those babies generally become more and more self aware as they become toddlers. If consciousness was some unique trait it would be stagnant, for the early years in humans, we see different levels of self awareness. This means self awareness is flexible.

12

visarga t1_irt7w5u wrote

> Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory?

That was a wasted opportunity. It didn't lead anywhere, it's missing essential pieces, and it has been proven that "systems that do nothing but apply a low-density parity-check code, or other simple transformations of their input data" have high IIT (link).

A theory of consciousness should explain why consciousness exists in order to explain how it evolved. Consciousness has a purpose - to keep itself alive, and to spread its genes. This purpose explains how it evolved, as part of the competition for resources of agents sharing the same environment. It also explains what it does, why, and what's the cost of failing to do so.

I see consciousness and evolution as a two part system of which consciousness is the inner loop and evolution the outer loop. There is no purpose here except that agents who don't fight for survival disappear and are replaced by agents that do. So in time only agents aligned with survival can exist and purpose is "learned" by natural selection, each species fit specifically to their own niche.

1

Think_Olive_1000 t1_is6e8p7 wrote

You can arrange rocks on a beach to have Turing completeness it doesn't mean that you moving them around will ever make them sentient. Sure the rocks can arbitrarily compute but they never form a cohesive experiencing machine or something that can simulate a reality of any kind on. When you move bits around inside a pc it's exactly the same.

https://xkcd.com/505/

0

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs3m6q wrote

>Self Awareness being computational means human beings set a precedent,

Set a precedent for what? For life specifically biological life because at the moment that is our only example and humans aren't the only conscious beings.

>Those aren’t even close to the same comparison

The point of the comparison is that they are different creatures with different attributes. AI and life are different from each other which is why we shouldn't make the same assumptions for the both of them especially due to lack of knowledge.

>Consciousness isn’t a trait unique to humans or any one animal

I already know this.

>Have you heard of Integrated Information Theory?

No I haven't, it is interesting but from I read about it, it isn't perfect. I wouldn't just assume this is the correct model. I do agree that there are different levels of self awareness in growing up. Also I never said consciousness was stagnant or a 'unique trait' whatever that means. IIT being correct doesn't mean AI can be conscious that is a huge leap, but something tells me you are going to start twisting the theory to fit your narrative.

−8

21_MushroomCupcakes t1_irsgatk wrote

You are implying it is some magic sauce, you just won't define it or admit it.

You need to explain why something is dumb, not just assert it and expect us to run with it. Otherwise it's assumed you're a know-nothing arguing purely from incredulity.

If we don't know (which you later clarified as one of your points), you can't draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other.

Your analogies could use some work, regardless of how "direct" you feel they are. It's okay, I'm terrible with them too.

And maybe be a little less douchey in your responses, people are trying to have legitimate dialogue and you're being a bit of a tool about it.

9

Rumianti6 OP t1_irslbjp wrote

I'm not implying some magic sauce, that is a strawman you built because you are afraid of an actual argument.

I did explain why AI MAY not be conscious, I wasn't explain why AI can't be conscious.

You think they need work but I don't care about you. I see stupidity and call it out.

−9

theabominablewonder t1_irs3oet wrote

If you evolved cows an infinitesimal amount of times then eventually you will get a flying cow.

When the singularity is reached and each evolution is more complex and more powerful and they can make these evolutionary leaps in code in an exponentially smaller amount of time then you get to the cow flying stage in a very short period of time.

6

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs4d66 wrote

It is not a literal example so what you said doesn't really matter in what I'm talking about. It was more of marking difference not that the relationship between life and AI are literally the same as cows and birds.

0

dasnihil t1_irtanws wrote

if you actually look more technically and objectively into consciousness, it's fundamentally very similar to AI, not the opposite like you suggest.

1