Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rumianti6 OP t1_irs5f02 wrote

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

My definition of consciousness is being able to have experience. I never said that only biology can achieve consciousness only that it is possible only biology can achieve consciousness big difference also it isn't magic. It is like saying that ice can burn wood because fire is able to burn wood, to say otherwise is because magic or whatever.

>I can't find any differences whatsoever between myself and something that's not conscious.

That's a more philsophical question. Also people aren't saying AI aren't conscious to get free slave labor it is because we have no reason to believe they are. I don't know why you are trying to shift the subject from logic.

−5

Optional_Joystick t1_irsj8cz wrote

It becomes philosophical whenever we investigate this to any depth. Given that your definition of consciousness is "being able to have an experience," I'd like to point out we already have systems which record their interactions with the world, and integrate their interactions with the world into their model of the world, in order to perform better on their next interaction with that world. Yet we don't consider these systems conscious.

Of course we're not saying AI aren't conscious in order to get free slave labor. That would imply we actually believe they are slaves and are looking to justify it. Instead we revise our definitions so that computers are excluded, and will continue to do so, because they are tools, not slaves. A priori.

Logic won't get us there when our definitions exclude the possibility. Sufficiently hot ice can burn wood, despite it being called ice.

11

Rumianti6 OP t1_irsm2f9 wrote

That is intelligence not consciousness

Of course you misinterpret my example ok. Not literal ice and fire. The point is that they are different. Also what you said doesn't even work because ice is cold water by definition. Don't try to use any other liquid I am talking about water.

It seems like you have no idea what I am even talking about. Of course you don't this is r/singularity after all where logic is thrown to the curb.

0

Optional_Joystick t1_irsuoiu wrote

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Our definitions exclude the possibility. It is very logical. Thanks for playing along.

5

pcbeard t1_irt522a wrote

We clearly aren’t the only conscious beings in our world. Dogs and cats and many other vertebrates (and some invertebrates!) seem conscious. Consciousness develops when having a memory of previous events helps survival. We should try to understand the entire continuum of consciousness and aim to simulate the most primitive kind first. Speech is clearly a much more advanced feature and not required. What are the essential capabilities of a conscious being?

2