/lit/ - Literature

>>18604660
>AI progress is slow
Pic related. I mean a sizable minority think it won't happen but this is a kind of wishful thinking I'd wager, they just don't want to believe their research will lead to such dramatic consequences as possible human extinction. Who could bare that responsibility? I don't see any real impediments to it emerging in our lifetime. Shit's going to get wild even well before we hit human level intelligence.
>Why is their objection relevant?
You have to get them to consent in the first place. You're like arguing why don't you just end things now because you won't mind dying when you're dead.
>And again we raise the question of what is the real difference between robotic and human consciousness at an ethical level. Why are robots lesser than us so as to be made our slaves? Isn't this just antiquity all over again, with robots as the slave caste rather than subjugated tribes?
I don't believe most menial tasks require sentience. You can also possibly have very advanced levels of cognition without any phenomenal consciousness. With the ethics of it, presumably our sense of social justice by then will be expansive enough to include all consciousnesses, animal and robot too. I imagine factory farming will be abolished in the not too distant future. If you're skeptical of such progress I remind you everyone used to beat the shit out of their kids until research came out showing it was harmful and most parents stopped. Same with recycling. Most people will do the right thing eventually. That gives me some hope that, despite the silly excesses of today's social justice and imperfect our political systems, we can still all genuinely work towards a more ethical life.
>scientitic theory of consciousness won't have ontological grounding
I think these details will all get solved. Newton's theory still holds as a limit case approximation of Einstein's.
>you can only perceive our own human consciousness
This hurdle too will be overcome once we know what the actual fuck qualia even are. You're just prematurely committing to some kind of dual aspect monism where it remains ontologically mysterious and inaccessible except by direct first person experience even if we understand all the cognitions underlying it, but that very much remains to be seen, as consciousness has to be somehow transparent to nature as natural selection worked on it. So for it to be impermeable to probing by natural means seems impossible.