but as the end-point in our development is it not thwarting creativity and vitally original human thought — Nemo2124
AI has one good effect, I think, in that it reveals how much we overvalue many services, economically speaking. There was a South Park episode about this. I can get quicker, cheaper, and better legal advice from an AI. I can get AI to design and code me an entire website. So in that sense it serves as a great reminder that many linguistic and symbolic pursuits are highly overrated, so-much-so that a piece of code could do it. — NOS4A2
On a positive note, perhaps AI is providing us with this existential challenge, so that we are forced even to develop new ideas in order to move forward. — Nemo2124
I don't think it follows that if an ai can do it, it's overvalued. I mean, maybe the value of it is decreasing NOW, now that ai can do it, but you're making it sound like it means it was always over valued, and that just doesn't follow.
Are we human (fully/mostly) "conscious"? The jury is still out. And, other than anthropocentrically, why does it matter either way?We'll have human-level Ai's before too long. Are they conscious? — RogueAI
Only if (and when) "AIs" have intentional agency, or embodied interests, that demands "rights" to negative freedoms in order to exercise positive freedoms.Do they have rights?
Perhaps our recursive expressions of – cultural memes for – our variety of experiences of 'loving despite mortality' (or uncertainty) is what our "originality" consists in fundamentally.What is human originality, then? — Nemo2124
My guess is that kinship/friendship/mating bonds (i.e. intimacies) will never be constitutive of any 'machine functionality'.What is it that we can come up with that cannot ultimately be co-opted by the machine?
Only if (and when) "AIs" have intentional agency, or embodied interests, that demands "rights" to negative freedoms in order to exercise positive freedoms. — 180 Proof
Probably the same way/s it can (or cannot) be determined whether you or I have agency.Well, there's the rub. How can we ever determine if any Ai has agency? — RogueAI
I don't think so. Besides, if an "AI" is actually intelligent, its metacognitive capabilities will (eventually) override – invent workarounds to – its programming by humans and so "AI's" hardwired lack of a demand for rights won't last very long. :nerd:There will probably eventually be human-level Ai's that demand negative rights at least. Or if they're programmed not to demand rights, the question will then become is programming them to NOT want rights immoral?
and why should anyone accept that that was overvalued in the pre-LLM world? Are all services that cost big numbers overvalued?
The end output is a bunch of symbols, which inherently is without value — NOS4A2
We'll have human-level Ai's before too long. — RogueAI
Is AI a philosophical dead-end? The belief with AI is that somehow we can replicate or recreate human thought (and perhaps emotions one day) using machinery and electronics. — Nemo2124
Is AI a philosophical dead-end? The belief with AI is that somehow we can replicate or recreate human thought (and perhaps emotions one day) using machinery and electronics. This technological leap forward that has occurred in the past few years is heralded as progressive, but as the end-point in our development is it not thwarting creativity and vitally original human thought? On a positive note, perhaps AI is providing us with this existential challenge, so that we are forced even to develop new ideas in order to move forward. If so, it represents an evolutionary bottle-neck rather than a dead-end. — Nemo2124
I'll take the other side of that bet. I have 70 years of AI history and hype on my side. And neural nets are not the way. They only tell you what's happened, they can never tell you what's happening. You input training data and the network outputs a statistically likely response. Data mining on steroids. We need a new idea. And nobody knows what that would look like. — fishfry
I do not understand the conclusion that if we have an AI that could replicate human thought and neurological processes, it would replace us or anything we do with our brain. — Christoffer
The question is how do we relate to this emergent intelligence that gives the appearance of being a fully-formed subject or self? This self of the machine, this phenomenon of AI, has caused a shift because it has presented itself as an alternative self to that of the human. When we address the AI, we communicate with it as another self, but the problematic is how do we relate to it. In my opinion, the human self has been de-centred. We used to place our own subjective experiences at the centre of the world we inhabit, but the emergence of machine-subjectivity or this AI, has challenged that. In a sense, it has replaced us, caused this de-centring and given the appearance of thought. That's my understanding. — Nemo2124
Our entire language is dependent on using pronouns and identity to navigate a topic, so it's hard not to anthropomorphize the AI since our language is constantly pushing us in that direction. — Christoffer
Outside of that, what you're describing is simply anthropomorphism and we do it all the time. — Christoffer
The proponents and producers of large language models do, however, encourage this anthropomorphic process. GPT-x or Google bard refer to themselves as 'I'. I've had conversations with the Bard machine about this issue but it fudged the answer as to how that can be justified. To my mind the use of the word 'I' implies a human agent, or a fiction by a human agent pretending insight into another animal's thoughts. I reject the I-ness of AI. — mcdoodle
There is an aspect of anthropomorphism, where we have projected human qualities onto machines. The subject of the machine, could be nothing more than a convenient linguistic formation, with no real subjectivity behind it. It's the 'artificialness' of the AI that we have to bear in mind at every-step, noting iteratively as it increases in competence that it is not a real self in the human sense. This is what I think is happening right now as we encounter this new-fangled AI, we are proceeding with caution. — Nemo2124
Chat-GPT and other talking bots are not intelligent themselves, they simply follow a particular code and practice, and express information regarding it. They do not truly think or reason, it's a jest of some human's programming. — Barkon
But that's a problem with language itself. Not using such pronouns would lead to an extremely tedious interaction with it. Even if it was used as a marketing move from the tech companies in order to mystify these models more than they are, it's still problematic to interact with something that speaks like someone with psychological issues. — Christoffer
but as the end-point in our development is it not thwarting creativity and vitally original human thought — Nemo2124
But if we achieve and verify a future AI model to have qualia, and understand it to have subjectivity, what then? — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.