Civilization Manifesto for Intellectuals of the Planet

[Emily Lake]

I think I saw this in a movie once. It doesn't end well. Remember, any AI will be programmed by humans, so....

I'm just gonna say bad idea.

I was just going to say the same thing. I Robot, the Terminator franchise, The Matrix. The only one I can think of that was successful was The Day The Earth Stood Still. And that one the AI's responsibility was extremely limited.

Huh? Am I missing something here? Where Asimov's robots malign somewhere?

Not intentionally malign, but yes. Caves of Steel and Naked Sun both relied on robots as unwitting accomplices to murder - things that wouldn't have happened had those robots actually had full cognitive function and sapience. It's one of the things that set Giskard and Daneel apart from other robots. Daneel's positronic brain, paired with a body that was extremely sophisticated (enough so to pass as human) allowed for much more complex extrapolative thinking, including the weighing of long-term consequences. Paired with Giskard's "mutation" of being able to read emotions (let's just go ahead and recognize that as empathy) which he passed on to Daneel, that's what allowed the development of the zeroth law.

Even with Asimov's laws of robotics, humanity only flourished throughout the galaxy by eliminating thinking robots. Even with those laws in place, robots did more harm than good to humanity, and Daneel recognized that damage and worked behind the scenes through Empire and Foundation to protect humanity from the risk of artificial intelligence.

 

[Emily Lake]

But to me the most interesting thing is to speculate on the possibility that intelligent machines will one day supplant humans — perhaps even driving them to extinction under some dire scenarios — without themselves being conscious, aware, or sentient in the least.

I don't see why machines cannot be programmed to be conscious. How are humans not machines anyway? Consciousness is hardly a defined subject, what it is. In humans consciousness seems to be nothing more than the different parts of the brain in contact. I think we can pull that off with non biological machines.

I think we're going to have to reach a stage where we can understand and program biological machines before any of those can become conscious. That's my bias, of course... but I think a lot of people massively underestimate exactly how interconnected our brains are with the rest of our bodies - they disregard the impact of completely analog chemical functions, as well as the extremely complex constant feedback loops that we use. Our mind is dependent upon our brains, but brains are hardware (inseparable from the rest of our physical hardware) and our minds are software. And even that's not a perfect analogy. The interdependency between our physicality and our psyche is massive.

Disagree. We can emulate any system we understand well enough. Emulation is slow, however. The main stumbling block is that we do not truly know how our minds work.

We don't know how our bodies work either. At best, we have the mechanics of our skeletomuscular systems down pretty well, but we don't have a really good understanding of our neurological systems, our endocrine systems, or digestive systems, etc. So far all we have is "looks like" and "moves like".

And that's about as far as we've got with emulation too - we've got some pretty good artificial insects, that look like bugs and move like bugs, and bump into things and maneuver landscapes pretty decently. But that's it. They don't process material, they don't reproduce, they aren't remotely close to actually *being* insects. They're not a plausible replacement for an insect, and they can't even take over the function of those insects.

 

[Emily Lake]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Conscious "of motion". Not conscious "of what Emily inappropriately loads into 'consciousness'".

I think yours is the definition that lacks, insofar as here you are attempting to reduce a system of equations to a binary fact.

I don't think it's a "system of equations" at all. I don't know where you end up thinking I'm reducing it to "binary fact", that's the opposite of my view.

The attempt to conflate basic "trivial consciousness" with "consciousness of some pretty specific stuff with a pretty specific shape that has nothing to do with what it is actually conscious of" is transparent.

My critique of your trivial reduction of consciousness is somehow more trivial than yours?

 

[Emily Lake]

Tell me, does this dog pass the mirror test? (Oops, forgot the link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hi...h-a-tiny-purse-watch-101694754783084-amp.html) otherwise "dog posing in mirror" will do it on Google.

The idea that dogs don't pass the mirror test reminds me of the early research that "proved" fish cannot hear sound - researchers played them classical music, and they didn't respond in any way, so therefore they must be deaf.

It never occured to the researchers that they could hear just fine; They just didn't care.

I don't put a ton of credence into the mirror test. I get what they're trying to show, I'm just not sure it works.

Some dogs definitely recognize that the image in the mirror is them, and act accordingly; some dogs seem convinced that it's an odorless interloper mocking them from the other side of the window. It's likely some aspect of intelligence involved, I'm just not sure it's self-awareness.

All three of my cats were fine with mirrors - none of them seemed to think it was a different cat. As kittens, they saw themselves in the mirror, had that moment of "omg, stranger" reaction, poked a bit, and ultimately either recognized it as being themselves reflected or otherwise not a risk. One of my cats, however, definitely understood mirrors - she would use the mirror to plan her ambushes. She would hide around a corner, and watch the mirror as the other cat approached. When they reached the appropriate location, she would pounce sideways and get them, even though they were out of her line of vision. She was clearly incorporating the mirror image of the room into her spatial awareness, and using it to plan an attack.

 

[Jarhyn]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Conscious "of motion". Not conscious "of what Emily inappropriately loads into 'consciousness'".

I think yours is the definition that lacks, insofar as here you are attempting to reduce a system of equations to a binary fact.

I don't think it's a "system of equations" at all. I don't know where you end up thinking I'm reducing it to "binary fact", that's the opposite of my view.

The attempt to conflate basic "trivial consciousness" with "consciousness of some pretty specific stuff with a pretty specific shape that has nothing to do with what it is actually conscious of" is transparent.

My critique of your trivial reduction of consciousness is somehow more trivial than yours?

I don't "reduce". That's the difference. I'm just going off the language you used: "are conscious", which is binary, and thus reduction of something that properly belongs as a sentence to a binary.

I say "consciousness cannot be reduced" in the first place, and that anything you say about consciousness requires an "of...".

When you leave off the "of", I interpret that as "of anything"

 

[pood]

Yes, AIs Understand Things — undermining John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

even if it was possible to replace judges et al with AI, there will be many who
would never accept that. Iran, Hezballah, Hamas, Russia, and on and on.

 

[ideologyhunter]

With an AI chief exec, what would constitute a sex scandal?

 

[Emily Lake]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Conscious "of motion". Not conscious "of what Emily inappropriately loads into 'consciousness'".

I think yours is the definition that lacks, insofar as here you are attempting to reduce a system of equations to a binary fact.

I don't think it's a "system of equations" at all. I don't know where you end up thinking I'm reducing it to "binary fact", that's the opposite of my view.

The attempt to conflate basic "trivial consciousness" with "consciousness of some pretty specific stuff with a pretty specific shape that has nothing to do with what it is actually conscious of" is transparent.

My critique of your trivial reduction of consciousness is somehow more trivial than yours?

I don't "reduce". That's the difference. I'm just going off the language you used: "are conscious", which is binary, and thus reduction of something that properly belongs as a sentence to a binary.

I say "consciousness cannot be reduced" in the first place, and that anything you say about consciousness requires an "of...".

When you leave off the "of", I interpret that as "of anything"

You're getting way hung up on a technicality of language, and imputing far more meaning into it than is actually there. I just don't know why. Nor what point you're trying to make here.

There are several different usages of the word "conscious", many of them don't use "of" in them. For example, when an EMT shows up, they're going to evaluation whether or not the person on the ground is conscious. They don't give a crap what they're conscious of. They want to know are they awake and aware. In this context, we're talking about consciousness as an aspect of cognitive ability.

 

[Emily Lake]

With an AI chief exec, what would constitute a sex scandal?

Altered porn images

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Or there are levels of consciousness. Infant brains are very different than adult brains. The argument could be made that these infant brains are not conscious.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes, AIs Understand Things — undermining John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment.

Consciousness or Searle's "understanding" are a lot like the aether that Einstein simply ignored talking about and allowed him to move on and take us along with him.

 

[Emily Lake]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Or there are levels of consciousness. Infant brains are very different than adult brains. The argument could be made that these infant brains are not conscious.

Sure - there's certainly a lot of cognitive development that occurs between infant and adult for humans. It takes us around 20 years to reach cognitive maturity - and that's only for neurotypicals. I don't think we spring from the womb all full of wisdom and self-awareness after all

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Or there are levels of consciousness. Infant brains are very different than adult brains. The argument could be made that these infant brains are not conscious.

Sure - there's certainly a lot of cognitive development that occurs between infant and adult for humans. It takes us around 20 years to reach cognitive maturity - and that's only for neurotypicals. I don't think we spring from the womb all full of wisdom and self-awareness after all

And it's all those hardware upgrades we keep getting until about age 30!

 

[Elixir]

I don't think we spring from the womb all full of wisdom and self-awareness after all

Speak for yourself.
I can marvel at how much more perceptive I was on a macro level, as a child. My earliest memories are of pure epiphany, and they quickly gave way to a mixture of repetitions, explanations and fascinations, while the "wisdom" of direct perception has been going downhill ever since! I think I had a great feel for what and who was right and good at around 4 years old, and have spent the rest of my life trying to prove or falsify to myself, what I was able to perceive directly as a toddler.
The only things that have accumulated to any benefit are muscle memory/coordination and the ability to predict some of the behavior of physical matter. And those things have since begun to degrade, dammit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think I saw this in a movie once. It doesn't end well. Remember, any AI will be programmed by humans, so....

I'm just gonna say bad idea.

I was just going to say the same thing. I Robot, the Terminator franchise, The Matrix. The only one I can think of that was successful was The Day The Earth Stood Still. And that one the AI's responsibility was extremely limited.

Huh? Am I missing something here? Where Asimov's robots malign somewhere?

Not intentionally malign, but yes. Caves of Steel and Naked Sun both relied on robots as unwitting accomplices to murder - things that wouldn't have happened had those robots actually had full cognitive function and sapience. It's one of the things that set Giskard and Daneel apart from other robots. Daneel's positronic brain, paired with a body that was extremely sophisticated (enough so to pass as human) allowed for much more complex extrapolative thinking, including the weighing of long-term consequences. Paired with Giskard's "mutation" of being able to read emotions (let's just go ahead and recognize that as empathy) which he passed on to Daneel, that's what allowed the development of the zeroth law.

Even with Asimov's laws of robotics, humanity only flourished throughout the galaxy by eliminating thinking robots. Even with those laws in place, robots did more harm than good to humanity, and Daneel recognized that damage and worked behind the scenes through Empire and Foundation to protect humanity from the risk of artificial intelligence.

Humans could be unwitting accomplices to murder, also. I don't see how that sets them apart and makes them malign.

(Admittedly, it's been a long time since I read those.)

 

[unapologetic]

AI runs the world is a very old Sci-fi plot.
(I skipped to the end) Did anyone mention 'The Forbin Project'?
Whatever you're smoking, how about passing it around.
Greed and self interest will prevent it from ever being implemented.
I don't have a problem with replacing Judges and prosecutors, as long as the AI sticks to the rules of running a trial.
Keep the jury human. And as long as the prez has veto power, he needs to remain human.

 

[Jarhyn]

Something is conscious while it processes inputs and outputs

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Conscious "of motion". Not conscious "of what Emily inappropriately loads into 'consciousness'".

I think yours is the definition that lacks, insofar as here you are attempting to reduce a system of equations to a binary fact.

I don't think it's a "system of equations" at all. I don't know where you end up thinking I'm reducing it to "binary fact", that's the opposite of my view.

The attempt to conflate basic "trivial consciousness" with "consciousness of some pretty specific stuff with a pretty specific shape that has nothing to do with what it is actually conscious of" is transparent.

My critique of your trivial reduction of consciousness is somehow more trivial than yours?

I don't "reduce". That's the difference. I'm just going off the language you used: "are conscious", which is binary, and thus reduction of something that properly belongs as a sentence to a binary.

I say "consciousness cannot be reduced" in the first place, and that anything you say about consciousness requires an "of...".

When you leave off the "of", I interpret that as "of anything"

You're getting way hung up on a technicality of language, and imputing far more meaning into it than is actually there. I just don't know why. Nor what point you're trying to make here.

There are several different usages of the word "conscious", many of them don't use "of" in them. For example, when an EMT shows up, they're going to evaluation whether or not the person on the ground is conscious. They don't give a crap what they're conscious of. They want to know are they awake and aware. In this context, we're talking about consciousness as an aspect of cognitive ability.

When using language in a technical way, about a specific thing, in a way you are liable to actually be correct, you cannot do so with language that is not technically correct.

I use "consciousness" in exactly one way. I mean no other thing when I say the word.

When I say the word, I always, 100% of the time, either qualify it with a thing which it is conscious of, or in a context it is clear I mean "of anything", usually to criticize sloppy use like yours. When I am sloppy enough to say something "is he conscious" as in "is he awake", I qualify it immediately, for instance, with "of his surroundings", which does actually speak directly and specifically to the one and only meaning I ascribe to the word.

Maybe you don't understand my point, but perhaps that IS the point: you don't actually have any specific, hardened definition for the concept of consciousness. This isn't the first subject you've waded into without such clarity and it never helps your position.

This is a discussion of whether some form of system can bear some form of quality. For that discussion you must be precise about exactly what you mean by the term. "You know, the thing" is not sufficient. This is my point: if you wish to claim it can't be some thing, you must precisely, and within a clear framework make a definition of what you believe lacks so that you lack any ability to shift any goalpost.

 

[Bomb#20]

By this definition, motion-sensing cameras are conscious.

I think your definition might be lacking a bit.

Or there are levels of consciousness. Infant brains are very different than adult brains. The argument could be made that these infant brains are not conscious.

Sure - there's certainly a lot of cognitive development that occurs between infant and adult for humans. It takes us around 20 years to reach cognitive maturity - and that's only for neurotypicals. I don't think we spring from the womb all full of wisdom and self-awareness after all

Also, there's certainly a lot of cognitive development that occurs between infant and baby for humans -- keep in mind that every one of us was a preemie. By all the normal rules of primate allometry, humans should have an 18-month gestation period.

 

[unapologetic]

humans should have an 18-month gestation period.

HA. Try telling your wife that.