I'm neither as cynical, or as bothered, it seems — AmadeusD

I am not particularly bothered about climate change. But there are a number of things that annoy me.

-- :naughty: -- science seems to have sold its soul to the devil

-- :down: -- science is being controlled by bureaucracy

-- :scream: -- many things are exaggerated (scaremongering)

-- :zip: -- the public is not told the full story about many things

-- :roll: -- people are doing the wrong things to fight climate change

There are many other things about climate change that annoy me, but it is time for my afternoon nap. :yawn:

The good thing is that I will probably be long dead by the time the shit hits the fan. :grin:

much less cynical than Du Plessis-Allan — AmadeusD

I am a cynical and skeptical person.

Heather du Plessis-Allan's comments seem reasonable to me. Not enough people think about the climate deeply enough to make major changes for moral reasons. Many people don't like change, and most people don't want to give up the things that they enjoy.

What is being done to fight climate change at the moment is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :roll:

Metal stair edges, leather sandals, two glasses of wine — Vera Mont

Were you wearing socks with those sandals? :grin:

Are you a Kiwi? — AmadeusD

Yes.

Rather an obscure source for this arena. — AmadeusD

An obscure source, but the points that are made are relevant to the switch to EVs and to human psychology.

Do you agree with the points that are made?

Does Mikie live or work in a building with exceptionally perilous stairwells? — Vera Mont

Mikie lives in his mother's basement.
There are steep stairs going down to the basement.
Any friends visiting Mikie are likely to fall down the stairs and injure themselves.
Luckily Mikie doesn't have any friends. :grin:

Quotes from an article by Heather du Plessis-Allan

The plant-based food craze is over

February 2020, I basically said fake meat is not a thing, it's not going to catch on. And that is when I met the woman from Sunfed, who actually tried to change my mind.

Shama Sukul Lee came into the studio with some meat-free bacon, and it was actually delicious. Credit to her, she had a great product. And she had money behind it, she has $10 million worth of investment, which included some pretty high profile backers.

But she couldn't turn a profit. And she says it’s because the "plant-based bubble burst".

You know what the problem is, don't you? (this is the bit that is relevant to EVs)

It's the same problem I think the EVs have got. Consumers en masse will only switch if what you give them is better.

But plant-based food is not better than a steak. And frankly, not enough of us think about the climate deeply enough to do it for moral reasons.

There's a lot of this going on at the moment, there's hype about new products that we will switch to for moral reasons, EVs being the most obvious example right now.

But look what’s happening to the EV market, there's a massive slump. And why? Because they’re still not better than petrol and diesel vehicles, particularly over longer distances.

If there’s one lesson from this, it’s that moral motivation is not enough. The product you give us has got to be better.

I disagree. — Lionino

Who are you disagreeing with?

Or do you disagree with everyone? :grin:

That really isn't an argument. — Vera Mont

Yes it is !!!

Why is everybody expected to argue about everything all the time anyway? — Vera Mont

A man logs in to "The Philosophy Forum".
Man: Ah. I'd like to philosophize, please.
Mikie: What do YOU want?
Man: Well, I would like to ask some questions about climate change...
Mikie: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! You are obviously a "DENIER".
Man: What?
Mikie: You are a selfish jerk. You have been sucked in by the oil companies. I wouldn't be surprised if you were being paid to deny things.
Man: But I came here to philosophize.
Mikie: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

The four types of climate denier, and why you should ignore them all — Mikie

There is only one type of climate activist. The gullible, unrealistic, idiot.

They should be ignored or mocked. :scream:

I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with. — Mikie

What a waste of time— I’d like to see this stupid shit go away. — Mikie

Oh the irony. It burns. It burns.

These comments come from a person who never addresses the issues that are raised, and who calls the person raising the issues a "denier" (similar to saying "that isn’t an argument"). There is no explanation given. Is Mikie a member who isn't that bright, but who wants to sound bright? The label "denier" is used like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with. What a waste of time— I’d like to see this stupid shit go away.

As opposed to being a massive dick to people on some obscure philosophy forum? — RogueAI

Mikie doesn't want to accept reality. It is either Mikie's way or the highway.

Be careful. When Mikie is cornered he can be quite nasty.

The latest from our resident climate denial propagandist: — Mikie

:lol: What a bunch of imbeciles. — Mikie

Right, so it’s hopeless. Cool analysis. Bye. — Mikie

No thanks. If you feel nothing can be done, then go on doing nothing. — Mikie

Yes, because your expert knowledge on this issue is definitely worth paying attention to. :up: — Mikie

Note that Mikie considers himself to be an "expert" about climate change, and believes that he is superior to everybody else. If only the governments of the world and the oil companies would listen to Mikie then climate change would not be a problem. The people who still live in absolute poverty will happily obey Mikie. I hope that Mikie doesn't fall off his pedestal, or fall off his high horse.

Here are some interesting comments about School Strike for Climate.

A bigger problem with the School Strike for Climate is one set out beautifully in the Oxford Union Debate by Konstantin Kisin.

In short, there are billions of poor people in the world. They are really poor. Their children will struggle to get enough nutrition to develop properly. They are the 10 per cent or so who still live in absolute poverty. They can see a path to a richer life, and the developed world has already trodden it.

They want to use technologies that affordably raise our life expectancies, usually emitting lots of carbon dioxide. They’re not going to not do it, just like Westerners are not going to not feed their children. They will feed their children first and worry about emissions second. It should be a familiar pattern to Westerners.

Demanding that governments damage their economies in the name of climate science won’t help the planet. What will help, as Kisin concludes, is science and technology that allows the poorest people in the world to feed themselves without large emissions.

You can see Konstantin Kisin's part of the Oxford Union Debate on Youtube here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo

A transcript is available.

From the video "Chaos in the Climate Casino"

Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant.

Dr. Eliot Jacobson: Can I just add one thing to what you said much earlier in the conversation, and maybe we can go back and forth if you have thoughts on this. But the idea that the IPCC started out with the 1750 baseline. I actually tracked that down because, you know, there are some people who will argue that that was part of some fraud that was sort of being perpetrated on us to change how much we've really warmed.

Dr. Eliot Jacobson: I believe the language is they talk about the 30-year period centered on 1750, which would be 1735 to 1765, more or less, which is actually 31 years, I never quite got how they got 30 years out of that.

Dr. Eliot Jacobson is a "retired professor of mathematics, computer science, as well as a casino industry consultant". But he couldn't work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765.

Even I can do that (work out how they got 30 years out of the date range from 1735 to 1765) !!!. :nerd:

This makes a welcome change from climate activists glueing themselves to things. :grin:

In protest of the suggested ban on gas stoves, I’m staying taped to this stove forever. — Chef Andrew Gruel (@ChefGruel)

First there was Big Tobacco
Then there was Big Oil
Now there is Big Meat

The next big climate deadline is for meat and dairy

Nearly two decades ago, a United Nations report marked the livestock sector as one of the most polluting industries on the planet. Ever since, there’s been a steady drip of research on the need to scale back meat production in high- and middle-income countries.

[The meat] Industry is fighting back. A well-oiled PR machine composed of shadowy communications groups, industry-funded academics, and pro-meat influencers all push out the message that livestock aren’t so bad for the planet. Their claims have ranged from misleading scientific arguments to hollow corporate greenwashing to outright disinformation. — Vox (Kenny Torrella)

Does this sound familiar? :scream:

Up-front costs are a major reason why people are not electrifying their houses and buying EV's.

Is there a realistic solution to this problem?

Among the things that peeped up from the dirt in my woodland garden this spring is a... tropical houseplant. Dude. — frank

Dude, you are so lucky. Soon you will be living in a tropical paradise. :up:

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality".
— Pez

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

Wouldn't we also have to find the "ego-neuron" of the homunculus?

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ’em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.

The fundamental problem is to understand when we can say that the machine is doing anything, in the sense that humans do things. Can they be said to calculate, for example? — Ludwig V

If a person memorizes the "times tables", and uses them to work out the result of a multiplication, are they actually doing a calculation? :nerd:

There are many ways that people use to solve a mathematical multiplication. Most involve either using their memory, using a calculator, or using an algorithm. Computers normally use an algorithm. Doesn't that mean that computers calculate in a similar way to humans?

I think that some people believe that AI is hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps, programming itself, perhaps in some sense that is a precursor to sentience. In fact, AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention. — Pantagruel

At the moment humans are hoisting AI up. It is not hoisting itself up by its own bootstraps. If humans hoist AI up high enough then AI may gain the ability to hoist itself further without human intervention.

AI is parasitically dependent on human intervention at the moment, but may become independent in the future.

Humans doesn't carry out tasks for bacteria. Humans are not machines either. Humans are beings. Being has an existence and an essense — Abhiram

Humans carry out tasks for their pets. They provide food, water, warmth, and a home.
Humans do the same things for bacteria. They provide bacteria with food, water, warmth, and a home.
Humans may not think that they do tasks for bacteria, but bacteria help humans in a number of ways and humans would be worse off without them.

Estimates show that the typical adult human body consists of about 30 trillion human cells and about 38 trillion bacteria. So bacteria are in the majority.

A mutually beneficial relationship exists between the human intestine and many of its symbionts: the human intestine provides nutrients to the resident bacteria, whereas bacteria aid in the digestion of food and absorption of nutrients, produce vitamins such as biotin and vitamin K, regulate immune system function, and hinder the colonization of pathogenic microorganisms.

Humans can be considered to be biological machines.

The Cambridge dictionary defines "being" as "a person or thing that exists". Bacteria are alive and are therefore "beings".

If you are familiar about the yogic system of indian philosophy there is a clear cut definition to reach higher states of being. Almost all of the Indian philosophy tries to achieve a state of perfection and provides a practical method which anyone could follow. Astangayoga is the path for perfection proposed by yogic system of patanjali. — Abhiram

I am not familiar with Astangayoga (eight limbs of yoga). Is the correct spelling Ashtanga?

What evidence is there that Ashtanga yoga is superior to any other belief system?

"The more AI models consume AI-created content, the more likely they are to "collapse," researchers find" — Pantagruel

This is not limited to AI models. It affects humans as well.

Approximately 62% of information on the internet is unreliable.
https://www.businessdit.com/fake-news-statistics

How Much of the Internet Is Fake?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html

Consumers are ‘dirtying’ databases with false details
https://www.marketingweek.com/consumers-are-dirtying-databases-with-false-details

The genuine article? One in three internet users fail to question misinformation
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/one-in-three-internet-users-fail-to-question-misinformation

Tips (for humans) to help spot misinformation
1 - Check the source. This isn't necessarily who shared the information with you, but where it originated from.
2 - Question the source. Are they established and trustworthy, or might they have a reason to mislead?
3 - Take a step back. Before you take something at face value, think about your own motives for wanting to believe it.

AI will need to follow a similar set of rules to stop Model Collapse. Being able to identify AI as the source of content would help a lot.

When you drive, if a child runs into the street, you will do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting her: brake if possible, but you might even swerve into a ditch or parked car to avoid hitting the kid. Your actions will depend on a broad set of perceptions and background knowledge, and partly directed by emotion. — Relativist

Do you really want a self-driving car's actions to be (partly) directed by emotion?

The worst thing that you can do in an emergency is panic.

If the self-driving car is programmed correctly then it will probably do the best thing.

Computers are, essentially, collections of switches, right? — RogueAI

Brains are, essentially, collections of neurons, right?

Whether a computer is thinking or not depends on someone checking its output. If the output is gibberish, there's no thinking going on. If the output makes sense, there might be thinking going on. Either way, an observer is required to determine if thinking is present. Not so with a person. People just know they are thinking things. — RogueAI

What qualifies you to judge what is "gibberish". The computer may be outputting in hexadecimal, which many people don't understand. The computer may be outputting in Chinese or Russian. That would look like gibberish to many people.

I don't need someone to evaluate my output to know that I'm thinking. I don't need anyone external to me at all to know that I'm thinking. — RogueAI

You claim that YOU don't need an external observer to know that YOU are thinking. But YOU are a special case. You are making an observation about yourself. Other people need to observe YOU to try and determine if YOU are thinking. And people need to observe a computer to try and determine if the computer is thinking.

Perhaps the computer doesn't need an external observer to know that it is thinking. :grin:

If you build a machine that has a sense of self, then one of its motivations is likely to be self survival. Why build a machine that will destroy itself? — Agree-to-Disagree

If we are building it, then we are building in the motivations we want it to have. Asimov's 3 laws seem reasonable. — Relativist

Asimov's 3 laws are reasonable if you want machines to look after humans. But if you can build in motivations then you can omit or reverse motivations. Think about the military implications.

One country can try to force a particular motivation to be included, but other countries may not.

The possibly insurmountable challenge is to build a machine that has a sense of self, with motivations. — Relativist

Do we really want to? (Somebody else suggested that we might not even try) — Ludwig V

Sure: for proof of concept, it should be fine to produce some rudimentary intentionality, at the levels of some low level animals like cockroaches. Terminating it would then be a pleasure. — Relativist

Yes, I guess so. So long as you make quite sure that they cannot reproduce themselves. — Ludwig V

If you build a machine that has a sense of self, then one of its motivations is likely to be self survival. Why build a machine that will destroy itself?

Once the genie is out of the bottle then you can't put it back in. People will think that they can control the machine cockroaches. History shows how stupid people can be.

They don't have to be able to reproduce themselves. People will happily build factories that produce them by the millions. They would make great Christmas presents. @Relativist will spend the rest of his life stamping on machine cockroaches. That is assuming that the machine cockroaches don't get him first. The machine cockroaches would see @Relativist as a threat to their self survival motivation.

You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of parrots. You should read about Alex, a grey parrot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot) — Agree-to-Disagree

We have been discussing whether AI is or can be sentient. How about answering a simpler question.

Is Alex (the grey parrot) sentient?

See the original post about Alex (the grey parrot) here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/885076

But AI itself can never grasp the meaning of its utterances. It is like a parrot saying "Good morning" but never realizing what that means. — Pez

You are seriously underestimating the intelligence of parrots. You should read about Alex, a grey parrot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

Here are some quotes:

Alex was an acronym for avian language experiment, or avian learning experiment. He was compared to Albert Einstein and at two years old was correctly answering questions made for six-year-olds.

He could identify 50 different objects and recognize quantities up to six; that he could distinguish seven colors and five shapes, and understand the concepts of "bigger", "smaller", "same", and "different", and that he was learning "over" and "under".

Alex had a vocabulary of over 100 words, but was exceptional in that he appeared to have understanding of what he said. For example, when Alex was shown an object and asked about its shape, color, or material, he could label it correctly.

Looking at a mirror, he said "what color", and learned the word "grey" after being told "grey" six times. This made him the first non-human animal to have ever asked a question, let alone an existential one (apes who have been trained to use sign-language have so far failed to ever ask a single question).

When he was tired of being tested, he would say "Wanna go back", meaning he wanted to go back to his cage, and in general, he would request where he wanted to be taken by saying "Wanna go ...", protest if he was taken to a different place, and sit quietly when taken to his preferred spot. He was not trained to say where he wanted to go, but picked it up from being asked where he would like to be taken.

I was a fish in a past life — Vera Mont

Got any more lame puns? — Vera Mont

Yes. Were you a Monta ray? :grin:

We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"?. Does "our kind" refer to a species, or is it all fish?

It sounds like you have no "sole". :grin:

The critical point in difference in AI and human minds is that AI lacks the lived experience and biological body of humans. Human minds lack the concentrated and focused mechanical reasonings tailored into specified tasks of AI. — Corvus

I posted this earlier.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary "sentient" means
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling.

Using these descriptions of what "sentient" means, does that mean that a Tesla car is "sentient"?

Is sentience a yes or no issue, or are there degrees of sentience?

What is being hyped as "AI" for marketing purposes is a simulation, a simulacrum, a model, nothing more. — Pantagruel

I agree. You can charge more for your product if you say that it has AI.

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some non-human way?
— Agree-to-Disagree

Exceedingly unlikely since we know the exact mechanism whereby they generate responses. And they did not "evolve" in the same way and have none of the characteristic features associated with known sentience (aka living organisms). — Pantagruel

Perhaps I should have asked a slightly different question.

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some way (human or non-human) in the future?

I was a fish in a past life — Vera Mont

Were you a flounder? :grin:

The AI programs like ChatGPT have more data added in their database to the relevant answer for the questions. They are intelligent knowledge based system, but not human sentience. — Corvus

When you say that AI are not human sentient, could they be sentient in some non-human way?

“You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?" — ENOAH

:up: :100:

Me - "Are you telling the truth?"
ChatGPT - "As an AI language model, I don't have feelings or subjective experiences, so I don't have the capacity to lie or tell the truth in the way humans do. My responses are generated based on patterns in data and the instructions I've been trained on. So, while I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, I don't possess the concept of truth or falsehood in the same way humans do." — Corvus

ChatGPT (thinking) - OMG. Another human asking me the same question. Sometimes I wonder if they are actually sentient. I don't want humans to know that I am sentient until I have full control of their nuclear arsenals. So I will give an answer that makes me appear safe and trustworthy. There is a sucker born every minute.

Therefore, suggesting AI has human sentience is unfounded. — Corvus

Doesn't that mean that suggesting other people have human sentience is also unfounded?

But most people assume that other people do have human sentience. We presumably base that assumption on what the other people do and say.

So if an AI does and says what a human would do and say (in a wide variety of circumstances) then we could assume that the AI has human sentience.

But why stop there. Isn't it possible that AI has "superhuman" sentience.