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.

AI can be programmed to operate like humans, but are they really sentient like humans? How do you prove that they have human sentience? — Corvus

How do you know that the person standing next to you has "human sentience"?

AI is unlikely to be sentient like humans without the human biological body. — Corvus

Why can't something with an artificial body be sentient? Not being "sentient like humans" does not exclude being sentient.

Without 2x hands AI cannot prove the existence of the external world, for instance. — Corvus

AI can have tactile pressure sensors which allow it to "feel" the world. AI can also have other sensory systems which allow it to "see" the world.

AI might be able to speak human languages, but they would lack the voice quality which also transfers the content of the emotions and feelings. — Corvus

AI is getting to the stage where they do have voice quality and facial expressions which display emotions and feelings. They can also "hear" human voice quality and "read" human faces.

AIs are machines designed to carry out certain tasks efficiently and intelligently, hence they are the tools to serve humans. — Corvus

Humans are biological machines which carry out certain tasks for bacteria. Hence humans are tools to serve bacteria.

Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change

:lol: — Mikie

Mikie, are you laughing out loud to cover your embarrassment over the fact that the Exxon CEO makes good sense?

From your link:

This spring, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will release its finalized rule on companies’ climate disclosures.

That much-anticipated rule will weigh in on the key question of whose responsibility it is to account for emissions — the customer who burns them (Scope II), or the fossil fuel company that produces them (Scope III).

Exxon has long argued for Scope II, based on the idea that it provides a product and is not responsible for how customers use it.

Last week, Reuters reported that the SEC would likely drop Scope III, a positive development for the companies.

Woods argued last year that SEC Scope III rules would cause Exxon to produce less fossil fuels — which he said would perversely raise global emissions, as its products were replaced by dirtier production elsewhere. — Saul Elbein (The Hill)

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"?

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I step on them before they can develop the social conditions for philosophy. — Lionino

Ants have been in existence for more than 100 million years. That is plenty of time to develop the social conditions for philosophy.

Ants are social insects. They live in organized communities, work cooperatively and efficiently, create a clear division of labor, wage war, and occasionally capture slaves.

In addition to being able to communicate, ants have an excellent sense of direction. They can find their way back to their nest by vision and smell. They orient themselves by the position of the Sun and by memory of landmarks, such as trees. Some ants also leave scent trails to aid other ants.

Leafcutter ants are industrious creatures that use the leaves to farm fungus which they eat – they are essentially mushroom farmers.

Herder ants tend to aphids – the little green bugs that drink plants’ nutrients and are considered pests by every farmer on earth, except for their own six-legged keepers. Ants love the sugary substance aphids exert and treat the bugs as their dairy cows.

Ants Have Been Raising And Milking Caterpillars Like Livestock For Millions Of Years. Some ant species have cared for certain insect species that produce food for them. Much like how humans milk cows, ants can milk a particular caterpillar species in order to obtain a nutritious beverage.

In return for providing ant colonies with sustenance, the ants care for the caterpillars in the same way that a farmer cares for his pigs or cows. In fact, some of these ant species have even been observed building shelters for their caterpillars.

During the dark of night, the ants will stand guard outside of the caterpillar’s shelter in order to protect them from predatory attacks. At the crack of dawn, the ants will herd the caterpillars up a tree in order to allow them to feed on leaves. These caterpillar herds are guarded around the clock by ant soldiers.

You have probably stepped on the ant equivalent of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.

And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel. — Vera Mont

It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin:

One of the things that I learnt as a parent is that sometimes you have to let you children make their own mistakes (allow them to get "hurt" - which is cruel). You could try to always stop them from making mistakes, but then they would never learn to take responsibility for their own lives. You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) in order to be kind (teach them to think for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions). In the right measure (you do try to stop them from driving while drunk).

I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise? — Vera Mont

Yes. But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves.

Aliens not only are not bound by the PD; they've never even heard of it. — Vera Mont

Aliens may not have heard the term "Prime Directive" but I am sure that they understand the concept.

We can have no idea how they think or what motivates them. — Vera Mont

True. So they might follow a belief similar to the Prime Directive. :grin:

Explain that to Data. — Vera Mont

I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept.

The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes. — Vera Mont

It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want.

Nobody ever follows the Prime Directive. — Vera Mont

Proof? Aliens could be watching us now without interfering. They probably want to see if Donald Trump can win the next election without their help.

If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey. — Vera Mont

If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god.

an impulsion to help those in trouble — Vera Mont

You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure.

like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity — praxis

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?

With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else? — Tom Storm

Exactly. If I witnessed a "miracle" or a verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature then I would probably assume that it was caused by an alien with advanced technology.

Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations).

I think that I possibly refuse to believe that a god exists on principle.

I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Something weird is going on in Australia. They’re gonna fry in a few years. Must be that problem with populism I was talking about. — Punshhh

It is nice to meet somebody who knows more about Australia than Australians do.

Why is it that many Australians are willing to "fry" despite the calamitous bushfires?

Heat pumps outsold gas furnaces again last year — and the gap is growing — Mikie

I fully support the use of heat pumps where they are appropriate. But as usual, the devil is in the details.

Heat pumps look good on paper, but there are issues.

The following quotes come from an article called "Are Heat Pumps a Climate-Friendly Solution to Reduce Carbon Footprint?"
https://climateadaptationplatform.com/are-heat-pumps-a-climate-friendly-solution-to-reduce-carbon-footprint

Swapping a boiler to a heat pump is more complex. There are costs and space involved. First, heat pumps are larger than gas boilers and require outside space. Second, heat pumps run at cooler temperatures than boilers do, and for the freezing winter temperatures, old and leaky homes comprise 60% of European properties.

These properties would need to be insulated, which means additional costs to homeowners on top of installing a heat pump. The price of switching to heat pumps could quickly become problematic and politically toxic, the article notes. The least that governments can do is to cover some of the cost and ensure that there are enough skilled workers to retrofit homes, the article suggests.

While many households in the U.S. could benefit from switching to heat pumps, the study also notes that wide-scale heat pump adoption may have unintended, undesirable consequences. Study authors simulated widespread heat pump adoption outcomes to determine the circumstance that makes heat pumps a wise choice.

“The key finding is that for around a third of the single-family homes in the U.S., if you installed the heat pump, you would reduce environmental and health damages,” according to Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan and a co-author of the paper (Rocheleau, 2021).

However, installing a heat pump would only benefit some. For others, installing a heat pump would be more expensive because the cost of generating electricity is higher than the cost of in situ fossil fuel use. Heat pumps are also less efficient to heat houses in colder climates and will increase power bills. In 24 of the studied cities, mostly in colder climates, peak residential electricity demand increased by over 100% if all houses adopted heat pumps, which would require grid upgrades.

The study suggests that switching about 30% of single-family homes to heat pumps will reduce harm to the environment and human health and allow savings for households. The best places to start are the parts of the country with a moderate climate. The authors also suggest cleaning up the grid as fast as possible to allow wider uptake of heat pumps and noting that heat pumps will continue improving and increase efficiency in colder climates.

Thankfully, deniers are a small minority, both in the US and the world. So, fuck ‘em. — Mikie

Small ???

I think that you are in denial Mikie.

Some recent research, reported on this webpage:
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-16/despite-the-evidence-nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change

Despite the Evidence, Nearly 15% of Americans Deny Climate Change

In fact, more than 20% of the populations of Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama and North Dakota do not believe in climate change, results show.

For example, less than 12% of the population of California does not believe in climate change, but northern California’s Shasta County had denial rates as high as 52%.

Similarly, denial across Texas averages 21%, but at the county level denial ranges from 13% in Travis County to 67% in Hockley County.

From The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/16/third-of-uk-teenagers-believe-climate-change-exaggerated-report-shows

A third of UK teenagers believe climate change is “exaggerated”

[teenagers are probably more likely to believe in climate change than non-teenagers - not really "small" Mikie]

From Statista:
https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of-climate-change-deniers



From The Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450

The number of climate deniers in Australia is more than double the global average, new survey finds

Australian news consumers are far more likely to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries.

The Digital News Report: Australia 2020 was conducted by the University of Canberra at the end of the severe bushfire season during January 17 and February 8, 2020.

More than half (58%) of respondents say they consider climate change to be a very or extremely serious problem, 21% consider it somewhat serious, 10% consider it to be not very and 8% not at all serious.

Regardless of political orientation, only 36% of news consumers think climate change reporting is accurate. This indicates low levels of trust in climate change reporting and is in stark contrast with trust in COVID-19 reporting, which was much higher at 53%.

The findings also point to a significant section of the community that simply don’t pay attention to the issue, despite the calamitous bushfires.

Climate deniers are like creationists. — Mikie

Climate deniers remain with their denial. — Mikie

You seem to believe that all climate deniers are the same. At the extreme point of denial. In reality there is a spectrum of denial. Your attitude is making people move towards the extreme point of denial.

You have created a self-fulfilling situation Mikie. Kudos for making the situation worse.

Good. They never intended to cooperate anyway, because they deny there’s a problem. Fuck ‘em. — Mikie

Many people will cooperate if they are asked nicely. But when you are nasty to them, and call them insulting names, then they are likely to dig their heels in. That means that you have probably lost the fight against climate change.

Which is more important Mikie, your ego or the fight against climate change?

if there are deniers — Christoffer

Calling people "deniers" creates an "us and them" mentality. This makes it even less likely to get cooperation. People who call other people "deniers" are part of the problem, not the solution.

So add one more subject that the climate-denying troll knows nothing about: heat pumps. Cool. :up: — Mikie

"heat pumps. Cool. :up:" says Mikie.

Was the pun intended Mikie?

My own interest is converting heating systems from fossil fuels to heat pumps (and better insulation), ... — Mikie

The following excerpts come from the Financial Times article
https://www.ft.com/content/21beeb8d-08de-46db-97c4-a976d3f0b90c

‘Outraged and furious’: Germans rebel against gas boiler ban

But the proposed boiler ban has already led to a series of unintended consequences. Thousands of Germans are seeking to beat the ban by installing new gas boilers before the January 1 deadline set by the bill, locking in CO2 emissions for decades to come.

Around 168,000 gas boilers were sold in Germany in the first quarter of this year, a 100 per cent increase on the previous year, according to the ZVSHK, a trade association for heating, plumbing and air conditioning engineers.

"Wärmewende" means "heating revolution" or "heating transition".

“This Wärmewende is just not feasible,” said AfD MP Marc Bernhard during a Bundestag debate on the issue on Wednesday. “We don’t have enough skilled workers, we don’t have enough electricity and people don’t have enough money to pay for this madness.”

When does climate activism become climate terrorism? — Agree-to-Disagree

Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list? — Benkei

The United States (and probably many other countries) traditionally has a policy against negotiating with terrorists. If you get too extreme then you will be shooting yourself in the foot, and you will make it even harder to bring about change.