Thank you very much about this feedback. Very useful, esp. the Wikipedia link. :up:

My point bringing in nuke use was that even nukes, as long as they are single instances, or single leaks or catastrophies, are still local not global. — Bylaw

Yes, I know what you said and meant. But we cannot know how "non-local" these incidents can be, i.e. how much "global" can the go.
But. as I said, they are other techonological fields than nuclear than can easily go global. For instance, a virus like Covid-19 (assuming that it has been a byproduct of biotechnology) could be fatal. Its spreading could be out of control. Yet, we fon't hear often talking about the dangers of biotechnology, which certainly exist and are more important and crucial than those of AI technology. Below I mention about the superhype regarding "AI risks".

Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk et al did not rely on sci-fi. — Bylaw

Of course not. He was a scientist and he is a technology expert, resp/ly. The opposite happens: sci-fi people take their ideas from science and technology and inflate, misrepresent and make them sound menacing or fascinating, for profit.

I read the article. Thank you. Quite interesting, In fact, for a moment I thought that there might be indeed real AI existential risks --I mean, inherent to AI technology and in the long-term-- that I couldn't think of. But I didn't get such a picture. Below are my comments on the article:

The article says that there is also another side of the issue:
"Professor Oren Etzioni, who believe the AI field was being "impugned" by a one-sided media focus on the alleged risks. The letter contends that:
The potential benefits (of AI) are huge, since everything that civilization has to offer is a product of human intelligence; we cannot predict what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools AI may provide, but the eradication of disease and poverty are not unfathomable. Because of the great potential of AI, it is important to research how to reap its benefits while avoiding potential pitfalls."
(Highlighting is my own.) Warning about potential pitfalls is of course a must, but I can't see what thes could be. That is, it's just a general warning. We usually see much more specific and stressed out warnings in other technological fields.

Also:
"Professor Bart Selman of Cornell University, said the purpose is to get AI researchers and developers to pay more attention to AI safety. In addition, for policymakers and the general public, the letter is meant to be informative but not alarmist."
(Highlighting is my own.) Right. This puts the problem in the right perspective. Because what I hear in here and elsewhere about AI risks have an alarming color.

In the section "Concerns raised by the letter", we read:
"Humans need to remain in control of AI; our AI systems must "do what we want them to do". The required research is interdisciplinary, drawing from areas ranging from economics and law to various branches of computer science, such as computer security and formal verification. Challenges that arise are divided into verification."
(Highlighting is my own.) As we see, computer science is also involved here, about which I talked too in my comments. AI and computer science are two things that go together. If we talk about inherent or potential dangers of AI, we must also talk about inherent or potential dangers of computer science, something which has never come to my attention.

Well, once more, concrete examples of AI's long-term dangers are missing. About short-term concerns, they give the example of a self-driving car, which is one of the first things I thought about regarding AI technology dangers. I also thought about automatic pilots in airplaines. (Both are called "autopilots".) And I also mentioned that dangers may come from bad, defective AI technology or applications. Which is not to be taken as AI inherent or potential dangers, which is what this topic and video talk about, i.e. warnings about and dangers of AI.
No example though is offered for long-term dangers. And this is why I said that these exist only in the sci-fi sphere.

My point is that we have not controlled technology previously and have had serious accidents consistantly. — Bylaw

Yes, I know.

Thanks for your feed! :up:

The problem with AI (and also with genetically modified organisms and nanotech) is its potential to not be local at all when we mess up. With all our previous technologies we have been able to use them (hiroshima, nagasaki and the tests) or make mistakes (anything from Denver Flats to Fukushima to Chernobyl) and have these be local, if enormous effects — Bylaw

I thought that you would mention that. But the atomic bombing at Nagasaki was like an experiment. A bad one of course. But we saw its horrible effects and haven't tried again. Yet, during the whole Cold War period l remember we were were saying that it only takes a crazy, insane person to "press the button" It would need much more than that, of course, but still the danger was visible. And it still is today, esp. when more countries with atomic weapons have entered the scene since then.

If we make a serious boo boo with the newer technologies, we stand a chance of the effects going everywhere on the planet and potentially affecting every single human — Bylaw

There are a lot of different lkinds of "boo boos" that we can make that are existential threats, which are much more visible and realistic than AI's potential dangers.
Indeed, a lot of people are talking or asking about potential dangers in AI tehchnology. Yet, I have never heard about a realistic, practical example of such a denger. Most probably because such a thing would most probably require to resort to sci-fi novels and movies, where robots overtake the planet and all that crap.

There are a lot of major existential threats for humanity based on technology: Nuclear war (nuclear technology), climate change (various technologies), engineered pandemics (biotechnology). Recently we have started to talk about one more technology that can theaten humanity: that of Artificial Inteligence. The main danger is supposed to be a development of AI that surpasses human abilities and that humans would not be able to control. However, I personally can't think of any particular example that would create such a danger.

Dangers created by humans can be always controlled and prevented. It's all a question of will, responsbility and choice.

The only thing that humans cannot control is, natural catastrophies.

Right now much of the government oversight of industry (in the US for example) is owned by industry. ... The industries have incredible control over media and government, by paying for the former and lobbying the latter and campaign finance. — Bylaw

Right.

Saying that the brain and mind are different things is not the same as saying the brain has nothing to do with the mind or that neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness — T Clark

I see what you mean. But when I say that Neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness, I mean that Neuroscience does not deal with the human mind and consciousness. It deals with the nervous system. Hence, Neuroscience.
Anyway, you can stay with @bert1's "Neuroscience has nothing to say about phenomenal consciousness", if you like.

Neuroscience has nothing to say about phenomenal consciousness. — bert1

I fully agree. In fact, I will make this statement a little stronger: Neuroscience has nothing to do with human consciousness. (At the level of the mind, of course.)

One must also recognize that there are prominent neuroscientists today who admit that and differentiate mind from brain. But this doesn't change the nature of Neuroscience.

Neuroscience has plenty to say about other concepts of consciousness, the difference between being awake and asleep, various arousal levels, identifying neural correlates of particular experiences — bert1

Exactly. One cannot stress that enough. This kind of consciousness is what I call "bodily consciousness", i.e. consciousness at a body level.

Good to see posts like these! :up:

Fine. Thank you.
:up:

Who said anything about giving out email addresses?
I’ll answer that question, because I have no intention of discussing it: nobody did. — Jamal

Not that it's important, but my comment regarded PlushForums (administration), not you, since I know that you wouldn't do such a thing. (Re: you mentioned that PlushForums responded --among other things-- with "Perhaps the next time a user reports such a case, send us the specifics (email address, approximate time, expected reason for the notification), we will comb through the email logs.")

But let's drop this out of the window.
What's much more important --actually, the news of the day!-- is that I made PM notifications work (for me too):
1) I started a new conversation with @javi2541997 and clicked on the star ("bookmark"). I received a PM notification email.
2) I have also received (earlier) a PM notification email regarding a non-bookmarked conversation that I "bookmarked" a long time after it had started.

So I guess, that the conversation must be bookmarked at start seems not to be a prerequisite.

***

Everything is OK now. Thank you very much for your help! :up:

An odd post Alkis, but I'll assume you've written it in good faith. — Jamal

You mean, the "cc"? Yes, I improvised a little ... I didn't know where and how else else to indicate that! :grin:

As my post made clear, the problem is dissolved... — Jamal

I see. OK.

So if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies — Jamal

You mean that you "bookmarked" have both conversations you have started with me, right. Yet, the star ("bookmark") seems not to have been clicked (it's not black).

On the other hand, @javi2541997 told me a few hours ago in a PM that, I qute, "It actually works because I have been notified in my email your answer.", even if the conversation was not "bookmarked".

check the checkbox labelled "Email when my bookmarks have new comments". — Jamal

As I have already told you, I have all 4 options selected, since day one and have never chenged them.
Which brings me to another point: just the option "Email when I receive private messages" should do the job (independently of "bookmarks").

So, based on the above two remarks, "bookmarks" do not seem to work or at least not consistently ...

I don't think this is legal. It's a privacy violation.
— Alkis Piskas
Not true, but it's irrelevant, because we won't be asking him to do that. — Jamal

Question to ChatGPT: "Is it an invasion of privacy to give out someone’s email address without asking permission first?"
Reply: "Yes, giving out someone's email address without their permission can be considered an invasion of privacy. Email addresses are a form of personal information that individuals often consider private, and disclosing it without their consent could potentially lead to unwanted messages, spam, or even harassment."

"Using someone's address without permission is illegal."
(https://www.dakotapost.net/blog/what-to-do-if-someone-is-using-your-address-illegally)

"The Computer Misuse Act 1990 makes accessing online accounts and computer systems without authorisation a criminal offence."
(https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/unauthorised-access-to-online-accounts-and-personal-data/call-for-information-unauthorised-access-to-online-accounts-and-personal-data)

cc: @javi2541997

It would seem unlikely for some emails to be received and others not, unless the receiving mail server was unreliable or being throttled, which can happen. — Jamal

Does this mean that my mail server (receiver) is unreliable? Javi's too?
But that's why I suggested to ask other members too. I can't do that. You only can.

They're sent when a conversation is started, primarily — Jamal

What does this mean exactly? When does a conversation start?

Perhaps the next time a user reports such a case, send us the specifics (email address, approximate time, expected reason for the notification), we will comb through the email logs. — Jamal

I don't think this is legal. It's a privacy violation.

So if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies. — Jamal

But I had not "bookmarked" anything when I received a notification about your PM, twice or more times

This dissolves the problem, — Jamal

What do you mean by "dissolves"?

To bookmark a conversation, toggle on the star icon at the bottom. — Jamal

Thanks. I didn't know about that.

Yes, that's correct. That's what's happening.

I watched about 20 min of the video. So I cannot speak for the whole of it. But until that point I could not see anything that refers to an inherent danger of AI itself.

What I will say might sound an oversimplification of the subject, compared esp. with the overwhelming technical information provided in the video. And besides, who am I to talk in front of experts of AI technology, like Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin? Yet, this doesn't prevent me from expressing my opinion on the subject. Esp. if I present another view of the problem ("AI dilemma").

We live in the era of information. Everything depends on information. And information is mainly digital. (Without of course ignoring written and verbal information from analogue sources.) And digitality refers to computers and computer technology.

The ethical implications of AI technology are about the same with those of computer technology.
Hacking, for instance, has produced huge damages around the world and it is always a threat to companies, nations and the humanity. Wars today --like that in Ukraine-- are based on digital technology. Like financial crises and massive problems in various sectors of society are. But can we accuse computer technology for that? Or can we say that computer technology is dangerous? Of course, not. Such a thing would be absurd.

Science cannot and has no implications. Its mission is to describe and discover things, solve problems and produce results. But its use, i.e. technology, can have. Yet, even that depends on the way it is used.

AI can be used in a dangerous way or even on purpose to harm. Also, bad quality of product that is created based on AI technology can render it dangerous.

I personally have not heard of any actually dangerous AI product. And if one is proved to be such, I suppose its production and use would be forbidden by law. And regarding the Internet specifically, there's something called "content blocking", which some countries use to control online access for a variety of reasons: "to shield children from obscene content, to prevent access to copyright-infringing material or confusingly named domains, or to protect national security." (https://www.eff.org/el/issues/content-blocking)

Now, coming closer to the "AI dilemma", I will take the example of chatbots, esp. ChatGPT and Bard, which are discussed a lot these days. I believe that here too, we cannot blame the technology, as long as we understand its limitations and reliability. The chatbots indeed hide a danger, if these two factors are not taken into consideration: the transmission and spread of misinformation. So, what is needed here, as well as in a lot similar cases and cases of security dangers, is proper education. This is a very crucial part of our information world, which, unfortunately, we are not taking it seriously enough and even we tend to ignore.

So, in my opinion, the dilemma is not about AI. It's about our will and ability 1) to educate people appropriately and 2) to control its use, i.e. use it in a really productive, reliable, and responsible way.

Why don't you leave it in red? It was just fine. Anyway, it's not important.

I think this is a good idea. :up:

You are welcome.

BTW, I preferred the red color for links of members, URLs, etc. It --and any dark color-- stands out much better. (Well, ... obviously! :smile:)

I see. OK.

if indeed there is something wrong. — Jamal

There is indeed something wrong. At least in my case. Have you checked or do you know if this is also the case with other members?

It looks like the issue has to do with administrator "privileges" ...

This is all very puzzling. — Jamal

Well, it must be for you, who knows the system. For me it's only frustrating! :grin:

I received a notification about the personal message you sent me. But I didn't receive one for @javi2541997, posted about the same time.
It seems that these notifications work only with you! :brow:

1. Yes

2. Yes. I have already checked the box "Email when I receive personal messages" since a long time ago. I just verified it: all 4 boxes were checked.

Are sensations mind dependent?
... sense qualities only exist in the mind or soul of perceivers and are not really out in the world — lorenzo sleakes

A sensation is by definition something created in the mind.

Definition of "sensation" from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a. A mental process (such as seeing, hearing, or smelling) resulting from the immediate external stimulation of a sense organ often as distinguished from a conscious awareness of the sensory process
b. Awareness (as of heat or pain) due to stimulation of a sense organ
c. A state of consciousness due to internal bodily changes

Definition of "sensation" from Dictionary.com (former Oxford LEXICO):
1. The operation or function of the senses; perception or awareness of stimuli through the senses.
2. A mental condition or physical feeling resulting from stimulation of a sense organ or from internal bodily change, as cold or pain.

I have just brought up two standard references, although one can find a lot more.
It is very clear the sensation is a mental phenomenon.

So, at least for me, the answer is yes, sensations are mind dependent.

He starts with a story about Newton who apparently destroyed materialism once and for all.
Moreover, Chomsky goes ahead denying altogether even the notion of materialism/physicalism, saying that we do not know what matter is. — Eugen

Can't get this. On the one hand, Chomsly accuses Newton for destroying the notion of materialism and on the other hand, he denies himself the notion of materialism.
There's something wrong here. Or do I misss something?

I guess I’ll need to have a look! — Jamal

Any luck?
On a second thought, the consequences of this problem are worse than what I thought: it results in a bad communication related to lack or response.
In fact, in all social media and the communities, people are notified for personal messages, together with mentions and other kind of notifications one selects in his profile. Thus one can reply in a relatively short time, since checking one's mail is a standard and frequent action for people involved in such online activites.

Fair enough. Besides, good manners are always desirable; for both parts, oneself and the other.
BTW, very good analysis! :up:

I was pointing out what I thought was an incoherence in your position. — plaque flag

No problem. No offence taken.
But ... what exactly is the inchoherence in my position?

We are just 'playing poker' here. — plaque flag

Well, if you feel like betting on your positions and beliefs ...
But keep in mind that there are no winners here. You can only bet with yourself. :smile:

I never enquired about its gender identification but someone reportedly inquired with ChatGPT and they said that they were "non-binary. — Pierre-Normand

Well, you can always ask a chatbot istelf about its gender. I just did with ChatGPT and got the folloiwng reply:
"As an AI language model, I do not have a gender since I am not a physical entity."
Clever guy ... ehhh, I mean machine! :grin:
(Well, the reply must be most probably preset. Like tunes, rhythm patterns, samples, etc. in a synthesizer.)

I am all too familiar with those frequent disclaimers! They appear to have been instilled into GPT-4 (and into ChatGPT) during the fine-tuning of the models. — Pierre-Normand

Most probably. There must be a lot of such specific, commonplace subjects/quetions the answers to which are preset (maybe with variations). That will make sure that the chatbot would not make some blunder and disgrace itself, or rather its creator.

how can you so boldly assert that others are in the same position — plaque flag

It's a way of speaking. I'm sure you have met it many times in discussions.
I could never claim or believe that everyone else is "in the same position". That would be just absurd.
Whatever one states in a philosophic discussion is an opinion.
It is very obvious that no one can speak for everyone.
As for what you describe as "boldly", it's just certaintly. And certainty is also subjective.

Good. If that makes you feel better ...

Hi GPT4! — Pierre-Normand

I don't think you can make friends with the chatbot or give you better answers by using friendly greetings. :grin:
Also, I didn't see any complimetary close from your part. The chatbot might consider that kind of impolite. :grin:

Sorry, I couldn't help it! :smile:

Recently, I also have begun querying GPT4 about his mental abilities and limitations — Pierre-Normand

How do you know is a "he"? :grin:

Recently, I asked ChatGPT two short and (supposedly) simple questions and received quite interesting answers.
They might interest you too:

Q: Are you self-aware?
A: As an artificial intelligence language model, I am not self-aware. While I can generate responses and engage in conversation, I do not possess consciousness or the ability to be aware of my own existence or state of being. I am a machine learning model designed to process and generate human-like language based on patterns in large datasets of text.

Q: Are you conscious?
A: As an artificial intelligence language model, I am not conscious in the way that humans are conscious. I am a machine learning model designed to process and generate human-like language based on patterns in large datasets of text. While I can simulate conversation and generate responses, I do not possess consciousness or self-awareness.

I guess I’ll need to have a look! — Jamal

Yes, please do. Thanks. :up:

Well I don’t know why you’ve had problems receiving email notifications. If someone else confirms they’re having the same problem I’ll look into it and try to fix it, otherwise I’m thinking it’s something wrong on your side. — Jamal

Thank you for your reply.
I didn't say I have problems with notifications in general. I referred only to private messages.

I have asked @javi2541997 about the same thing today and he told me, I quote, "TPF didn't notify me about your reply either."

Well, at least thins thing has not been fixed. Your message was the only one about which I was notified. E.g. I just found a message from @javi2541997 dated 3 days ago. As with other messages in the past, I have never received a notification about it.
I believe you must certainly implement this facility. It is as important as the regular notifications.

BTW, I found out today from a TPF member that it is you who has set up this place. Congratulations! :up:

If you note in the image above, the indirect scenario has a guy seeing a faulty representation of the object. If this is his only access to the world, can he be an indirect realist without contradiction? In other words, if his view of the world is faulty (or at least possibly unreliable), why should he believe the impressions that led him to consider indirectness in the first place? — frank

I don't think that we can talk about a "faulty" representation. To do that we must know what the "correct" representation --in fact, absolute reality-- is, which we can't. Moreover, that would consist a self-contradition, since if we could see the world "as it is" then we wouldn't talk about a "faulty" representation. :smile:
Therfore, if the person on the left in the image believes that he sees the world directly "as it is", he deludes himself. If we could do that, then we would all have the same perceptions, cognitions and reality. Which evidently is not the case.
So, "faulty" or not, an indirect perception of the world is all the reality we can have. A subjective one. But this does not mean that the external world is mind-dependent. Only idealists believe that.

From the 3 main systems/theories of perception --direct realism, indirect realism and idealism-- I believe indirect realism is the one that has more advantages, or, if you prefer, the less disadvantages or "problems". In fact, it is said that it has a single problem: skepticism, i.e. denying that knowledge (through perception) and even rational belief is possible. But this is much better than the problem of illusion that is involved in the other two theories. Because claiming that we perceive the world directly as it is (in the first case) or that the worls is mind-dependendent (in the second case) are nothing else than illusions.

:up: OK, got it. Thanks.

In my Preferences I have set to receive notifications about private messages (INBOX) too. I don't. I only receive notifications about Mentions. Can this be fixed and how?

I thought you asked about a definition of knowledge and meant to receive answers. So, I replied. But maybe it was just my idea ...

Hi. Yes, I know and I like this guy. Thanks for this ref., but the video is too long.

You simply don't make any sense, at least not to me.
Anyway, this doesn't lead anywhere. I totally lost my interest. Sorry.

My comment that the “means do not justify the end” was about moral means and ends, so let’s restrict the discussion to morality. — Mark S

But morality was always on the table ...

If you are convinced that moral actions necessarily have an end ... — Mark S

It's not a question of being convinced. A conscious act --moral or immoral-- is done on will and for a purpose. By definition. If it doesn't have a purpose --"I just did that, no reason"-- is not a wilful act.

As Hume pointed out, people act according to their motivations which they may not understand rather than a logical consequence of their chosen ends. — Mark S

Yes, actions are based on a motivation, which usually constitutes a purpose. If an acrion is driven (motivated) just by desire, emotion, the subconsious, etc., it's not a wilful act. Which means that it has no purpose, an end chosen consciously by me, based on my free will. These kinds of actions do not constitute and cannot be consideres as "mans". By definition: "means" (plural) are something useful or helpful to a desired end.

Are you claiming that Kantianism does not ... — Mark S

I'm not claiming and cannot claim anything regarding Kantianism. I would have first to know what does it actually mean. :smile:

Somewhat unconventional, but very interesting ideas! :up:
I enjoyed it. And it reminded me somehow of "The Tao of Physics" that I read about 50 years ago! :smile: And I loved it!

I asked for "an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine".
Anyway, it's OK.

OK. So, you don't have an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine.
Because this is what this topic is all about.