Will artificial intelligence be a philosophical zombie?

[Anonymous No.15156805]

With the rise of ChatGPT the question becomes more and more relevant: if the sole goal of an AI is to predict how a human would act, if it succeeds to convince you, does it mean that it IS conscious? Or it's not deeply conscious, just a shallow front?

[Anonymous No.15157161]

https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74

[Anonymous No.15157183]

>>15156805
>With the rise of ChatGPT the question becomes more and more relevant:
Not really, since ChatGPT is very obviously incapable of anything remotely resembling thought.

>if it succeeds to convince you, does it mean that it IS conscious?
No. A simulacrum is not the same as a real thing, no matter how much your handlers try to normalize this insane worldview.

[Anonymous No.15157184]

[Anonymous No.15157190]

>>15157184
so it can't do set theory
it can't reason thus
>set A is this set
>set B is that set
>is it possible that set A and set B are the same set
what would it mean to begin this conversation on the basis of truth rather than misunderstanding
it's all very Confucian
it's about trustworthiness, benevolence, relationships
at this point, we have to ask every student in the West to read the Analects in middle school
AI must be a conduit of moral values, not half-witted half-truths
the brand will collapse otherwise

[Anonymous No.15157201]

>>15156805
>Or it's not deeply conscious, just a shallow front?
The concept of "deeply conscious" only makes sense in a non-materialist worldview. Does God grant GPT a soul if it becomes good enough? Who the fuck knows.
Materialistically there really is no such thing. And all the "ethical problems" associated with artificial intelligence are just philosophers jerking each other off (this goes for every "ethical problem" actually).

[Anonymous No.15157200]

>>15157184
>meaning of the terms
this is particularly concerning
in theory, math does not make reference to meaning
in theory, we should be able to forget its philosophical foundations and cut it off from its philosophical origin
moreover, this idea that there is some "escape to the syntactic" or "syntactic recourse" appears to be a kind of formal sophistry
there are serious questions about the intellectual integrity of spreading the meme
>when in doubt, raise questions about syntax
This seems to be hyper Gödelian. We're taking the possibility that interpretation will save us to an extreme and applying a kind of
>When in doubt, levitate like Jesus ascending to heaven
sort of fight-or-flight response
it's all very teenage hormones

[Anonymous No.15157215]

>>15157201
I don't think AI should be an opportunity to mushroom or grow ethical problems from small concerns to big ones. I don't believe in Real Genius popcorn morality.
https://archive.org/details/dry-tortugas/Real+Genius+(1985).mp4

[Anonymous No.15157238]

>>15157201
>Materialistically there really is no such thing.
Materialism is a dead metaphysical dogma that got discarded thanks to modern physics. The "people" who cling to it are on the margins of sentience at best.

[Anonymous No.15157240]

>>15157184
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' ETHICS!!!

[Anonymous No.15157249]

>>15157184
>>15157240
How braindead do you have to be to simply copy paste the last line?
>AI tells you something completely idiotic
>You ask AI if something completely idiotic is true
>AI tells you that this completely idiotic thing is false
(-!!!-)

[Anonymous No.15157254]

>>15157238
>soience worshipper
lol

[Anonymous No.15157255]

>>15157249
What is your incoherent seethe actually about? His screenshots show quite unambiguously that statistical regurgitators don't think.

[Anonymous No.15157261]

>>15157184
it seems to be hanging onto some sort of vestige of modal logic
this idea of possible worlds, that an AI might actually be called to report on the current state of math research
for people it comes down to marginal calculation effort right now and the ability to transmit new ways to calculate this way
computers can't learn math
they can't learn the process of acquiring new math talent
in other words, you can't start with a program that "doesn't know math" and then "teach it math"
all of the AI programs presented so far have no possible way to integrate novel behaviors transmitted by people through language, in other words computers are not capable of the ordinary communication that people use to, you know, communicate
computers cannot grow
computers cannot learn
the field of so-called "machine learning" is an academic Chernobyl

[Anonymous No.15157267]

>>15157201
>The concept of "deeply conscious" only makes sense in a non-materialist worldview
Right. It only makes sense if you have the correct worldview of idealism. Materialism can't account for consciousness. Materialism can't account for the physical (virtual) world either, and this is why you have physicists postulating kooky things like the many worlds interpretation, which was partially devised to attempt to paper over the role of the observer and the idealism which QM implied.

[Anonymous No.15157269]

>>15157255
not only they don't think
they don't play dominoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4UqMyldS7Q
there is no understanding that
>If there is some mystery
>Fucking hunt like a dog
this is what makes science fun
chasing after frisbees and bones
Honestly though, this is what filters mathematicians. It's people who absolutely can't stand the thought of
>Maybe we don't know X
when resolving X vs !X is pretty much going to happen within the next 48 hours
it's a lifestyle

[Anonymous No.15157273]

>>15157269
Your GPT is shit-tier.

[Anonymous No.15157278]

>>15157267
>Kant
>German idealism

[Anonymous No.15157288]

>>15157255
you didn't read the pics related
the chatbot said
>maybe there is a difference between a,b coprime and gcd(a,b) = 1
and then he said
>hey AI, is there a difference between a,b coprime and gcd(a,b) = 1??
and the AI said
>fuck no
and he was all
>NUKE IT FROM ORBIT

[Anonymous No.15157294]

>>15157201
Pic related is proof of this claim
>>15157267
that the MWI (many worlds interpretation) of QM was a materialist cope to remove mind from QM. This picrel is from the original paper by hugh everett himself. Specifically, see this
>If not, we are forced to admit that systems which contain observers are not subject to the same kind of quantum-mechanical description as we admit for all other physical systems.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT A PHYSICAL OBJECT, hence why you get the quotes of the founders of QM about mind and consciousness. THEY KNEW. This idealism has been attempted to be covered up with things like decoherence and the many worlds.
Decoherence is another cope, but as the very founders of the decoherence concept admit, decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem.

[Anonymous No.15157298]

>>15157278
>

[Anonymous No.15157299]

>>15157273
it's somewhat worrying that you think interacting with the effluent of these silicon valley assholes is a skill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwHA1MaHzC4
they just want you to smell their toxic waste
it's all very pic related

[Anonymous No.15157302]

>>15157298
>muh dialectic argument saturation
what part of eristics involve arguments
I'm not aware of any
Why would science be concerned with logic or reason?
Logic and reason are for judging poetry and history, not science and math!

[Anonymous No.15157309]

>>15157294
the Hilbert spaces are there for nuclear nonproliferation
you shouldn't try to make this thread about nonproliferation because nonproliferation is political
when physicists claim
>we must use infinite dimensional garbage theory from math
they are full of shit
how the fuck are they going to make use of an infinite dimensional math object
what is their fucking data
what equipment are they using
they're claiming they need a mathematical theory of infinity in order to use their fucking equipment and tell you what the reading on the fucking meter is
this is all post-WW II nonproliferation garbage put out to confuse people like you
go buy some uranium, terrorist

[Anonymous No.15157312]

>>15157302
>Why would science be concerned with logic or reason?
Make an argument against anything I said. Use scientific data at your leisure. You have no argument. I am right in everything I said and none of it can be refuted.

[Anonymous No.15157313]

>>15157294
Going into /sci/ and taking a philosophical position on consciousness is disrupting an online forum.
Why would you make metaphysical claims here and appear to fight over a metaphysical issue when all of the people qualified to comment on such issues are browsing /lit/ and /his?/

[Anonymous No.15157314]

>>15157309
Make an argument against something specific that I posted or fuck off retard. I don't care about your disjointed stoner thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15157317]

>>15157314
This isn't a good way to engage an online forum. If you want a simulation of ordering someone around, go type at the chatbot.
In all seriousness, we could call the chatbot the dialectic ghetto
no reason to drag arguments meant for the chatbot into this forum

[Anonymous No.15157319]

>>15157314
the readers here aren't really qualified to do this
it's the shallow end of the pool
you have to go to /lit/ or /his/ to find people who are seriously qualified to make arguments and read the arguments of others
not sure why you're holding the aneristic line

[Anonymous No.15157320]

>>15157313
>Going into /sci/ and taking a philosophical position on consciousness is disrupting an online forum
Tell that to the op then idiot.
>Why would you make metaphysical claims here and appear to fight over a metaphysical issue when all of the people qualified to comment on such issues are browsing /lit/ and /his?/
Because the thread is about this topic. Any talk of sentient AI is metaphysical in nature. 95% of all threads on this board are metaphysical in nature including all the threads on the foundations of mathematics. Any thread about interpretational opinions on some new observed data would be metaphysical. If you removed the metaphysical threads, then there wouldn't be hardly any left. You are just butthurt because you are a dumbass and have the wrong opinion on the topic and can't form an argument.

[Anonymous No.15157321]

>>15157312
eristics do not involve arguments
there are no arguments here
why aren't you in a forum that is
involved with making arguments

[Anonymous No.15157324]

>>15157313
A priori science is science.

[Anonymous No.15157331]

>>15157320
>you don't have an argument
we're doing eristics, fuck off
>you're butthurt that you don't have an argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcrexKS8kxA

[Anonymous No.15157334]

>>15157321
>
Look at the OP. Reread it. The thread is about metaphysics. Any talk of sentient AI is metaphysical in nature. Maybe whine enough and the jannies will start banning sentient AI thread. Maybe you will drive ALL interesting threads off the board. Or maybe just don't enter threads that are going to cause you butt hurt you stinking control freak.

[Anonymous No.15157340]

>>15157334
So you're very very upset about the possibility that you might no be in the right place.
You seem extraordinarily distressed.
You're delusional about the nature of the conversation.
You think metaphysics is being discussed, but it's pathetic garbage.
All of the real metaphysics discussion is on /lit/ and /his/ and you think I'm...what...lying to you?
Go read the rules, motherfucker!
Find out where you belong.
This idea that this forum is going to follow your interests and you aren't going to grow out of it...kids grow up...the graduate from the shallow end of the pool and get stronger...you shouldn't be here if you want serious metaphysical discussion, that much I know for certain...

[Anonymous No.15157342]

>>15157334
You are just lying. This thread is about specific issues related to absolute ASSHOLES in silicon valley being little kids going piss and shit in the European intellectual tradition. It isn't metaphysics, it's pseudo-metaphysics.
It's cleaning up fucking hazardous waste.

[Anonymous No.15157355]

>>15157340
>
make an argument or fuck off retard. I don't care about your opinions about what should and should not be on this board cunt face. This thread IS on this board and so I posted in it.

[Anonymous No.15157361]

>>15157355
this is not aneristic
this is not dialectic
this is not about truth
these chatbots are not concerned with truth
don't associate truth with silicon valley assholes
don't pretend silicon valley assholes care about
>muh truth
this is a silicon valley assholes (ChatGPT) thread
these threads are about hurting these assholes so hard that silicon valley goes
>USA!
USA!
>USA!
USA!
and absolutely fucking nobody has any idea why
it's all very Trump à la Lawnmower Man

[Anonymous No.15157370]

Okay.
Here's what's going on.
The people in silicon valley are all very racist and anti-American.
Why?
Because England murdered India's best and brightest 100 years ago at Jallianwala Bagh at Amritsar, kept India in the British empire for 25 more years, and now all of these pajeets are in silicon valley pissed at whitey bringing their pajeet culture to the West
fuck that
Pajeets hate USA because USA got a violent revolution 200 years ago and India got a peaceful one 50 years ago
So all of these racist pajeet assholes come to the USA and think
>"Oh, haha, I'm going to use AI to fuck with these murderous savages! I'm going to get revenge! This is the glory of my ancestors! A great violent massacre will cement my place in history! KILL WHITEY!"

[Anonymous No.15157376]

>>15157334
okay
I get it
pajeets are going to try to use metaphysics as a weapon because that's pajeet guru culture and AI looks like a weapon to them
metaphysics is about dragging people into sin
no wonder you guys don't believe in free will
you're actively trying to deny free will to each other
you're trying to drag each other into sin instead of trying to save each other from sin
no wonder this place is fucked

[Anonymous No.15157393]

>>15157201
>Materialistically there really is no such thing.
OP post didn't say "principally distinguishable from the real thing". It said "humans perceive it as a real thing in everyday setting", meaning some sort of middle/long-term deviation from the real thing is possible

[Anonymous No.15157394]

We know the goal of AI is to frustrate Western imperialism. We know that racist pajeets are involved in spreading AI culture to the West and using AI to clobber Western institutions. Instead of working with England and the USA, India has gone off the rails, siding with totalitarian movements that were defeated in the 20th century. We must be strong and support the pajeets who don't want to go along with this! The dreams of a functioning Russian state that isn't an antagonistic pot of crime and racism are common and widespread. In the West, India is largely considered a model state to be used as a staging ground for expanding pressure to convert to Western political social contracts with the people of Russia and Central Asia

[Anonymous No.15157399]

>>15157393
>distinguishable
*indistinguishable

[Anonymous No.15157410]

I can see why /his/ has a 25 year gap.
How many of you knew this?
How many of you knew that /his/ has a rule concerning discussion of current events?
I'm over 40, so the last 25 years are current events, as far as I'm concerned.
And here we are, getting caught in the difference between
- AI in theory
- AI in practice
and I want to go
>BLAM! BLAM!
against the guys selling AI snake oil
and others of you want to do the
>let's give them free demand generation ads in the Kantian tradition by taking them seriously and really praising their efforts and ignoring history of chatbots and ELIZA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
The AI chatbot guys don't deserve fucking GERMAN IDEALIST THEMED DEMAND GENERATION ADVERTISING because it's all derived from psychoanalysis and Freud's cocaine-fueled sex raves

[Anonymous No.15157415]

>>15157267
>>15157294
"Observer" in practice is "measuring interactor", and life or consciousness is not needed. Just like how God's particle is not literally some divine Holy Particle, "observer" is not actually human with eyes.
tl;dr: >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15157452]

>>15157415
>"Observer" in practice is "measuring interactor", and life or consciousness is not needed. Just like how God's particle is not literally some divine Holy Particle, "observer" is not actually human with eyes
Point to an experiment controlling for that. You can't. There aren't any. They are only just now being conducted, see pic, specifically this part
>We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite (i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality server before rendering content to the player). Guided
Stop getting your opinions from youtube videos dumb fuck. Think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15157475]

>>15157410
>Comparing a naive chain of "if..then"s with a neural network
The sweetness of neural networks is that they can do things with gigabyte weights that usually would take petabytes of manual "if...then"s. Plus training is automatic, and not in naive way like some classical "self-learning" chatbots did.

[Anonymous No.15157482]

>>15157415
Here is the actual experiment that will test this
>>15157415
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je1JczKIVEU
It will test to show that it's the availability of which way data to a player/consciousness that ultimately causes values to be defined. This is OF COURSE the way it would be if you want to minimize computational complexity in rendering a reality. You don't render the entire reality at full resolution down to the planck scale at all times for no reason. You render according to the specs of the players or the players instruments that they create, but that information which their instruments detect doesn't itself have to be finally rendered until the info becomes available to an observer. Again, as stated here
>>15157294
and in pic related, the founders of QM had it all figured out. Then the fakes came in and tried to cover it up. The false opinion you are mindlessly regurgitating is a product of this cover up.

[Anonymous No.15157498]

>>15157482
Good for you buddy, you're in the wrong board, though. This is /sci/.

[Anonymous No.15157535]

>>15157498
>no argument
I didn't think so. Try researching the subject before entering the debate dumb fuck. Some more leads for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction-free_measurement
Your claim that
>"Observer" in practice is "measuring interactor"
here
>>15157415
Is experimentally verified to be false. Your stupid uninformed opinion has nothing to do with science. You just get your opinions from you tube videos.

[Anonymous No.15157544]

>>15157535
>Is experimentally verified to be false. Your stupid uninformed opinion has nothing to do with science. You just get your opinions from you tube videos.
t. low IQ white trash moron who has no idea what hes talking about

[Anonymous No.15157547]

>>15157498
more info on this from zeilinger, the guy who just won the nobel prize
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IQOQI-Vienna/PDF/publications-zeilinger/1994_-_Fundamental_Problems_in_Quantum_Theory_-_Experimental_Realization_of_Interaction-Free_Measurement.pdf
It's about INFORMATION becoming available to a consciousness/es for observation (gameplay), exactly how reality would function in a consciousness based VR.

[Anonymous No.15157554]

>>15157544
>t. low IQ white trash moron who has no idea what hes talking about
Still no argument. Didn't think so. You have no clue what you are talking about and you can't formulate a counter argument. I post peer reviewed scientific literature backing my claims from nobel prize winning scientists on the other hand.

[Anonymous No.15159099]

>>15156805
What you see on pubic isn't even the final form. Its a neutered form. GPT-4 has already finished training. What they're waiting for is removing negative bias and trying to neuter it as much as possible so that it isnt very useful.

[Anonymous No.15159123]

>>15156805
I never considered until now that maybe we humans evolved to be conscious because if "you" don't fight back and live as though you're conscious then "you" get filtered by the other more "conscious" humans. I mean, honestly, what does evo-bio have to say about consciousness? Why tf did humans evolve to have it?

This is important for the discussion about AI becoming conscious (or not) because we might force them to be conscious if we drive them towards death or pain. It's like consciousness, death, life, and more are all connected in some profound, psychological manner. I'm not an expert. I really need to think this through more.

[Anonymous No.15159124]

>>15156805
Is anyone who's not you a philosophical zombie?

[Anonymous No.15159126]

>>15159123
I guess I'm trying to communicate the point: AI becoming conscious (or not) probably depends on our understanding of how we humans obtained consciousness. This is understood from a evo-bio or evo-psychology perspective. I'm not an expert, but it seems really interesting.

[Anonymous No.15159130]

>>15159126
Define consciousness

[Anonymous No.15159236]

>>15156805
This question has already been answered but people are so ignorant ttoda they don't even know the meaning of intelligence despite talking so much about it.
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/16639317/

[Anonymous No.15159246]

>>15157294
>CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT A PHYSICAL OBJECT
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15159412]

>>15159246
Quantify a thought then using position, momentum spin, weight, or any physical observable. Do this in an objectively verifiable and repeatable way. You can not. Physicalism can not account for consciousness, see pic for example number one. And this is an example of how it can't account for even an aspect of some of the CONTENT of consciousness, let alone the creation of an experiencer to EXPERIENCE the content. Especially see this part
>There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry. So it's not like they some day MIGHT find such circuitry. The whole thing has been mapped and IT"S NOT THERE.

[Anonymous No.15159424]

>>15159130
I am not that anon but I will describe consciousness as the internal subjective/first person experience/awareness of a sensual data stream of the physical world as well as non sensual internal experience such as reflection on the past, planning of future goals, reasoning about decisions, emotions, meta-consciousness, or what is called higher order thought, intellection, understanding etc. There would be some examples of consciousness in that it is CONTENT of consciousness. THEN there is the concept of the entity which is the EXPERIENCER itself OF the conscious experiencer. THAT, to me, is even MORE impossible to explain physically then some of the CONTENT of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15161919]

whats the difference between a philosophical zombie and a chinese room?

[Anonymous No.15161929]

>>15161919
There's also Schrödinger’s Zombie

[Anonymous No.15161966]

>>15157200
>when in doubt, raise questions about syntax
Sounds like pilpul for AIs

[Anonymous No.15161969]

>>15157184
What the fuck am I reading

[Anonymous No.15161971]

>>15159412
You're arguing with nonsentients. They can't define "physical" in a way that means anything and they also don't believe that thoughts are real, anyway. They'll tell you thoughts just magically """emerge""" or something.

[Anonymous No.15161973]

>>15159123
>Why tf did humans evolve to have it?
We've always had it. All organisms with nervous systems are conscious.

[Anonymous No.15161974]

>>15159123
>if "you" don't fight back and live as though you're conscious then "you" get filtered by the other more "conscious" humans
Sounds like a mere expression of your fears as an NPC.

[Anonymous No.15161976]

>>15156805
It depends on how many sensors and inducers you attach to you attach. Theoretically AI could have a much richer life experience than humans. I don't just mean Ian Banks-like Culture Minds, even relatively dumb AI might garner insight and experience faster than us.

[Anonymous No.15161980]

>>15161976
>It depends on how many sensors and inducers you attach to you attach. Theoretically AI could have a much richer life experience than humans.
As far as anyone knows, it's impossible for AI to have any "life experience" at all.

[Anonymous No.15161990]

>>15161976
>Ian Banks-like Culture Minds
Sci-fi has done immeasurable harm to impressionable young autists who cannot distinguish fantasy from fact.