"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.

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. — Agree-to-Disagree

Probably the right thing, sure - but only if the particular situation has been anticipated and programmed. I have in mind situations that aren't anticipated, but there are objectives imbedded in the thing along with the capacity to create a solution that meets that objective.

Just to be clear: I'm skeptical we can build a machine with actual emotions. Looking beyond that, if we could build such things, I'm assuming we can tailor its emotions toward usefullness and with fail-safes to prevent it doing something harmful or stupid due to panic . That's what I had in mind with my "emotional" self-driving car. We wouldn't build it with a "panic mode" that induces suboptimal behavior. A kid running in front of the car triggers an "emotional reaction" that results in the car temporarily abandoning its travel objective and focusing on figuring out how to avoid killing the kid. Alternatively, if a certain orange politician runs into its path, it would seek a course of action consistent with the zeroth law of robotics.

No, I don't think you can reasonably argue that human beings suffer model collapse.

This has been a very interesting - and stimulating discussion and I regret that I can't contribute more to
This is a fascinating discussion and I regret that I am unable to contribute to it. There are lots of interesting ideas at play here.

Why do you need information about the physiological state of the subject? Unless you are a medical doctor or neurologist, it seems to be a remote area which wouldn't reveal a lot in terms of one's state of consciousness in analytic and metaphysical level. — Corvus

I'm afraid I wasn't very clear about this. It is quite true that we don't need information about the physiological state of subjects to attribute states of mind to them. However, states of mind are said to be internal. We are able to make connections between those states and physiologically internal states of subjects, but those attributions are very different from the internal states of computing machines. There is a sort of parallel between mental/physiological states and software/hardware states, but also important differences.
It is clear to me that once we appeal to the internal states of an AI machine we have gone beyond any Turing-type test, so the fact that we find such information significant is important. This is obscured by the standard description that AI constructs its texts in a very way that is very different from the way that humans construct their texts. Quite how human beings construct their texts is pretty much unknown at present, but the difference is identified in the remark that human "understand" their texts, whereas AI doesn't (as is shown, for example, in the fact that it sometimes "hallucinates" data, especially references, and seems to lack any capacity to critically evaluate its sources). (Or that's the impression the reports that I have read give me.)
I take the point about states of consciousness at the analytic or metaphysical level except that I don't have a clear grasp about what those things mean. My view is that attributions of "internal" states, of belief/knowledge, desires and intentions is attributed by interpreting a given action in context of other actions and responses.

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?

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".

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

This is a really useful way to think about these issues - particularly when we are thinking about how AI might develop. It seems to me that it can be applied very widely to technology in general. Darwin applied evolution to living things because they are self-replicating. However, that idea depends on how you look at things. Some parasites are dependent on another species to replicate. (I have in mind the fungi that replicate by hi-jacking ants - Wikipedia - Ant-parasitic fungus Viruses hi-jack the cells in their host to replicate - though they are border-line alive. Lichens are another interesting case.
The key point here is that once a parasitical relationship is established, evolution ensures that the development of parasite and host are inter-linked. This is a helpful model for understanding AI. But I don't see that it enables us to make predictions about how it will go or not go.

Specifically, if human beings rely too heavily on AI then essentially we are back to the self-consumption of AI and model collapse, yes. — Pantagruel

Maybe this also applies to human beings. Too much recycling of the same ideas without evaluation or criticism of them is harmful to thinking. Full stop.

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. — Agree-to-Disagree

If I don't know the difference between "I" and "you" (and "they"), how can I articulate my observation that I am thinking? If I can't articulate the observation, is it meaningful to say that I can observe it? I think not. So the thinker's awareness that they are thinking may be a special case, but it is not independent of other people's observation that they are thinking and the thinker's awareness that other people are thinking.

Humans can be considered to be biological machines. — Agree-to-Disagree

Quite so. That's why the short argument about whether machines can be conscious etc. is that there are already conscious machines in existence. There are plenty of questions about what would persuade us that something is a conscious or living machine, so that argument is not very helpful. But for what it is worth, I think it stands up.

I take the point about states of consciousness at the analytic or metaphysical level except that I don't have a clear grasp about what those things mean. My view is that attributions of "internal" states, of belief/knowledge, desires and intentions is attributed by interpreting a given action in context of other actions and responses. — Ludwig V

The most intriguing problem with consciousness is that everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, but no one seems to know how the physical brain generates non-physical minds. This is called the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind.

Biologists, and neurologist have been trying to solve the problem, but so far what they have been saying is that at certain location of the brain certain mental events seem to be causally linked. But that still doesn't explain what mind is in detail or any realistic sense. It is like saying the rain comes down from the sky. Everyone knows that. Mind is linked to the physical brain.

Hence, it would't be much point going into the physical and biological details of brains, because mind will not show up in there.

But philosophically, we can describe the aspects of mind via looking into linguistic, behavioural and rational reasoning capabilities of the conscious beings in metaphysical logical and psychological level.

everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, — Corvus

I certainly think that, but I don't think EVERYONE knows it. Many many many many people do not agree that the mind emerges from the brain.

I certainly think that, but I don't think EVERYONE knows it. Many many many many people do not agree that the mind emerges from the brain. — flannel jesus

In ancient times, they believed mind is in your heart, and your breath is your soul, suppose.

I'm not referring to ancient people, I'm referring to people today, people in this forum even. Only a slight majority of professional philosophers are physicalists about the mind, something like 48% are non physicalists which means they think some significant portion of what a mind is does not emerge from the physical brain.

Beliefs are bound to change through time and other factors. It can be every, most or a lot whatever ... :D Anyhow that goes to show that humans don't agree even on the point where minds emanate from. But I am sure the majority would believe it is in the brain.

The majority of philosophers, yes. The vast majority of scientists, yes. But possibly not the majority of posters here, probably not the majority of people in the world, or even the US. And certainly not "everyone", which was the initial claim.

Sure, I am not into the exact statistic data how many percentage of folks in the world or TPF believe in the fact that mind generates from physical brain. But I am certain that majority of them believe that it generates from physical brain. If not, then they would change their beliefs sometime in the future. Sometime in the past or future or now somewhere in the world that everyone believed, believes or will believe that mind generates from physical brain.

Actually it is a practical methodology. I don't think it is better I think it is worth studying it. Maybe even scientifically. If we could improve our mental capacity who knows what we could achieve in the future.

So does that mean humans are like bacteria for a higher being.

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.

everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain. — Corvus

I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed.

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. — Agree-to-Disagree

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? Do they check our spelling and grammar? Searle says not because it is we who attribute significance to their results. But that means that their results are significant; we treat what they do as calculation or spell-checking. It isn't straightforward either way.

everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain.
— Corvus
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed. — Ludwig V

I was shocked to read the post by claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be?

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?

If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus

In the complex system wherein and whereby the embodied brain operates

I was shocked to read the post by ↪flannel jesus claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus

It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below.

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

No. The times tables are a short cut. They are the results of calculation. We memorize them because it makes it easier to do more complex multiplications. (I'm sure you know that 2 x 3 = 2+2+2). Some (perhaps all?) primary school children are introduced to multiplication in that way. Once they understand that multiplication reduces to addition, they are moved on to memorizing their tables.

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? — Agree-to-Disagree

Perhaps at the software level it does mean that. But in this case, I think the "different way" is based on the machine coding of the process. (However, the AIs are a different case. The difference is clearly at the software level.)

In the complex system wherein and whereby the embodied brain operates — Pantagruel

Yes, I agree with that. My understanding is that once you get into details, the spine is deeply involved in what the brain is doing, so we should not think of the brain alone, but of the brain + spine - and the entire nervous system. Then we have to recognize the hormonal system in the emotions and the heart and muscles in action. In the end, I actually prefer to say that the connection is between the mind and the whole body. But I am too lazy to always be correcting people, so in most circumstances I just let the difference go.
That gives a basis for thinking that a machine constructed from silicon could never be a person or behave as a person does. I'm not all sure about that conclusion, though.

If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus

You're not familiar with Dualism? With the concept of souls?

It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below. — Ludwig V

You're not familiar with Dualism? With the concept of souls? — flannel jesus

It has been said in the ordinary language manner to indicate the most sensible educated modern folks. The modern dualists might believe mind and body are separate entity, but most of them would still believe the mind is generated from the physical brain. It is not the main point of the OP worthy to quibble about, because the OP is not a High-Order Logic topic. :nerd:

If mind is not in brain, where would it be? — Corvus

So where in the brain is it located? Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality.

So where in the brain is it located? — Pez

That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it.

Mind is located in the brain is all they seem to be saying for the simple evidence that if you break your arm or leg, then you can still speak, see, think and feel i.e. you are still fully conscious. But if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities above mentioned, or become unconscious immediately.

Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality. — Pez

Of course the physical brain itself won't be able to function without all the bodily parts and organs properly connected via the neural network. If you are going into multiple personality and conscious experience, then you are leaving the physical realm of mind i.e. the brain, and entering into the world of psychology and epistemology.

It is not the main point of the OP worthy to quibble about, because the OP is not a High-Order Logic topic — Corvus

I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken.

That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it. — Corvus

It may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part.

I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken. — Ludwig V

No problems mate. I do respect your honest acceptance on the situation instead of keep going on with the wrong points and spiralling and falling into the ad hominem exchange of posts like some other posters in the past. :nerd: :up:

It is a common sense that everyone knows that mind resides in the brain, when there is a popular expression in the ordinary language, when someone does or says something wrong, "He / She needs his/her head examined." :smirk: Denying that, and trying to make out as if there are bunch of folks out there who believes that mind comes from the belly buttons or some other parts of body sounded totally and utterly senseless. Even the ancient Greek sophists wouldn't be out of touch with the world in that degree. :rofl:

t may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part. — Ludwig V

Yes, if you asked where the power generates from the motor cars, then we can say, from the engine. Cleary the moving force generates from the work of the engine. But that alone cannot drive a car. The engine will need all the other parts such as gears, steering wheels, clutches, accelerator, brakes housed in solid car body also attached with 4 good tyres for the car to drive.

Likewise consciousness generates from the physical brain, but it needs all the bodily organs properly connected to the brain via the neural networks in a healthy body, for it to function properly.