jdawgeleven11
jdawgeleven11 t1_j8zcvq8 wrote
Reply to How do we deal with the timescale issue? by SirDidymus
If one were to agree with Kant, time is just a construct of our perception, a necessary condition to experience, not something that one experiences.
Further, as another has mentioned, we are not sure what the substrate and dynamics that give rise to the internal representation of ourselves and the outside world we call consciousness is, and therefore cannot know whether any synthetically intelligent system would ever have a first person subjective experience that they could call time in the first place.
Does an AGI need a visual system? Does that system have to be sufficiently integrated to auditory and sensory inputs as well as its intelligent manipulation of symbols in order to experience? To be determined.
Also further, like another other has said, you are anthropomorphizing these systems. We are bound to the drives that evolution has saddled us with, these systems, I doubt, will be burdened with emotions or suffering unless they are given those capacities. Why would we give these systems a sense of suffering? If all they know is a language, nothing about the knowledge of what suffering means in a web of meaning will help an AI actual experience suffering.
jdawgeleven11 t1_j8u2buo wrote
Reply to What if Bing GPT, Eleven Labs and some other speech to text combined powers... by TwitchTvOmo1
Everyone on this sub clearly has no idea what the distinctions are between sentience, consciousness, intelligence, and personal identity and or how to use them in discussions concerning the mind.
A squirrel is sentient… but it can’t use language.
A language model can give you appropriate outputs to inputs, but it can never be sentient.
jdawgeleven11 t1_is2wonb wrote
Reply to comment by RoddyDost in Bruno Latour posed a major challenge to modern philosophy’s key assumption - a distinction between the human subject and the world. Philosophy as a field is yet to properly understand the importance of his contribution | Graham Harman. by IAI_Admin
It reminds of this detail from a Neal Stephenson book I read called Anathem (the book is... fine). Ignoring the merits of the book as a whole, there is one funny detail that I think would be useful. In this world, there is an ancient order of logicians and mathematicians, each members of various sects with various roles to play in the continuity of society. The task of one of the sects was to analyze all new works and point out where the author thought they had an original idea only to be shown that it had been written about thousands of years prior. Does seem to be where we find ourselves often these days.
jdawgeleven11 t1_jat07a7 wrote
Reply to Glorifying the "self" is detrimental to both the individual and the larger world. It neither helps you find your true nature, nor your role in the larger world. by waytogoal
There is no such thing as a 'true nature' and one's role in the larger world is rarely ever is of consequence to you or the world.