Optional_Joystick t1_irsj8cz wrote on October 10, 2022 at 6:31 PM

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

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.

frenetickticktick t1_irsslnh wrote on October 10, 2022 at 7:35 PM

Why not "employees" rather than the full on melodrama of "slaves.'

Optional_Joystick t1_irt67b9 wrote on October 10, 2022 at 9:08 PM

I'd prefer the term "volunteer."

Rumianti6 OP t1_irsm2f9 wrote on October 10, 2022 at 6:50 PM

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.

Optional_Joystick t1_irsuoiu wrote on October 10, 2022 at 7:49 PM

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