Artificial Intelligence sentient

[Count Lucanor]

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

Just bear in mind that mind emerged from organic matter. So one would expect that any AI that became sentient had gone through that self-regulated state first.

[Sunday66]

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

Just bear in mind that mind emerged from organic matter. So one would expect that any AI that became sentient had gone through that self-regulated state first.

No it did not. There is no evidence for that. Just a belief.

[Count Lucanor]

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

Just bear in mind that mind emerged from organic matter. So one would expect that any AI that became sentient had gone through that self-regulated state first.

No it did not. There is no evidence for that. Just a belief.

It's not an issue of evidence. You said it was "demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter". I just clarified that this matter that you are talking about, is organic, which itself is emergent from inorganic matter. So in the end your statement should read like this:

"it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from the organic matter that emerged from inorganic matter"

[Sy Borg]

"it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from the organic matter that emerged from inorganic matter"

Mind emerged from non-sentient life that emerged from complex non-living organic chemicals, that emerged from simpler organic chemicals, which emerged from inorganic chemistry, which emerged from free ions in the early universe, which emerged from whatever insane nonsense was going on in the baby universe before the four forces separated.

I'm thinking that the next step after sentience would be akin to the steps from simple organics (various sugars on the Krebs cycle) to complex ones like RNA and then DNA, with the emergent quality of accurate replication.

At this stage the replication of human memes* is not very accurate, hence the frequent distortions of gossip and rumours, even (sometimes especially) via official channels. Look at the madness of literalist theism, treating the Bible as if it was the word of God, including modern semantic interpretations and ignoring the ancients' liberal use of poetic devices, especially metonymy and metaphor.

I suppose AI would be in the box seat when it comes to future prospects for accurate replication of memes, but it depends who did the programming and training.


* as described by Dawkins, not polemic social media images.

[Sunday66]

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

Just bear in mind that mind emerged from organic matter. So one would expect that any AI that became sentient had gone through that self-regulated state first.

No it did not. There is no evidence for that. Just a belief.

It's not an issue of evidence. You said it was "demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter". I just clarified that this matter that you are talking about, is organic, which itself is emergent from inorganic matter. So in the end your statement should read like this:

"it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from the organic matter that emerged from inorganic matter"

No, I did not say that. It was a quote from the article. I do not believe it.

[Count Lucanor]

Just bear in mind that mind emerged from organic matter. So one would expect that any AI that became sentient had gone through that self-regulated state first.

No it did not. There is no evidence for that. Just a belief.

It's not an issue of evidence. You said it was "demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter". I just clarified that this matter that you are talking about, is organic, which itself is emergent from inorganic matter. So in the end your statement should read like this:

"it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from the organic matter that emerged from inorganic matter"

No, I did not say that. It was a quote from the article. I do not believe it.

Nothing in your post shows any evidence of your words being a quote from an article. And if it was a quote from an article (we can't know, because the link provided is broken), then there would be no sign of your beliefs in said post, so it is either fully a quote from the article or a full opinion of your own. Interestingly, after being challenged, you now deny both, so we don't know what the heck is what you wrote there. But you know what? No problem, here it is, your post, so you can tell me which part expresses your view, and which part the view from the article:

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...l-intelligence

Saw this article and thought others would enjoy discussing it.

My own view is that AI does not need to have consciousness.

[Count Lucanor]

At this stage the replication of human memes* is not very accurate, hence the frequent distortions of gossip and rumours, even (sometimes especially) via official channels. Look at the madness of literalist theism, treating the Bible as if it was the word of God, including modern semantic interpretations and ignoring the ancients' liberal use of poetic devices, especially metonymy and metaphor.

I suppose AI would be in the box seat when it comes to future prospects for accurate replication of memes, but it depends who did the programming and training.

What it takes to be stupid, humanly stupid? I'm not sure, but if the makers of AI machines managed to build them with such qualities, we would be getting closer to achieving artificial sentience. It is ironic, since they seem to be working in the opposite direction.

[Sy Borg]

At this stage the replication of human memes* is not very accurate, hence the frequent distortions of gossip and rumours, even (sometimes especially) via official channels. Look at the madness of literalist theism, treating the Bible as if it was the word of God, including modern semantic interpretations and ignoring the ancients' liberal use of poetic devices, especially metonymy and metaphor.

I suppose AI would be in the box seat when it comes to future prospects for accurate replication of memes, but it depends who did the programming and training.

What it takes to be stupid, humanly stupid? I'm not sure, but if the makers of AI machines managed to build them with such qualities, we would be getting closer to achieving artificial sentience. It is ironic, since they seem to be working in the opposite direction.

It's baby steps at this early stage. When/if it's possible to recreate the sentience of a cockroach, perhaps researchers could try to giant leap to recreating the brain of a small lizard. It's a very long way from those relatively modest projects to mapping the fine details of human brain dynamics.

[Sunday66]

No it did not. There is no evidence for that. Just a belief.

It's not an issue of evidence. You said it was "demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter". I just clarified that this matter that you are talking about, is organic, which itself is emergent from inorganic matter. So in the end your statement should read like this:

"it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from the organic matter that emerged from inorganic matter"

No, I did not say that. It was a quote from the article. I do not believe it.

Nothing in your post shows any evidence of your words being a quote from an article. And if it was a quote from an article (we can't know, because the link provided is broken), then there would be no sign of your beliefs in said post, so it is either fully a quote from the article or a full opinion of your own. Interestingly, after being challenged, you now deny both, so we don't know what the heck is what you wrote there. But you know what? No problem, here it is, your post, so you can tell me which part expresses your view, and which part the view from the article:

Because one day, perhaps very far in the future, there probably will be a sentient AI. How do I know that? Because it is demonstrably possible for mind to emerge from matter, as it did first in our ancestors’ brains. Unless you insist human consciousness resides in an immaterial soul, you ought to concede it is possible for physical stuff to give life to mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...l-intelligence

Saw this article and thought others would enjoy discussing it.

My own view is that AI does not need to have consciousness.

what a waste

[value]

Since there is no scientific evidence of "mind" or "consciousness" in humans there is no basis for assuming a categorical difference between AI and the intelligence of human material organisms.

What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

[Wizard22]

I believe that some immature and fledgling forms of AI, such as AlphaGo, Leela Chess Zero, Stockfish, etc. are already capable of out-thinking and out-rationalizing humans.

So it is only a matter of time before robots, computation, and other AI, fully imitate and even overcome, all aspects of human cognition.

Such a possibility may not be far from now. It is coming, and Humanity ought to prepare accordingly.

[Count Lucanor]

what a waste

Good choice. That's the best way out for you from the mess you put yourself into. It was going to be a wreckage.

[Count Lucanor]

At this stage the replication of human memes* is not very accurate, hence the frequent distortions of gossip and rumours, even (sometimes especially) via official channels. Look at the madness of literalist theism, treating the Bible as if it was the word of God, including modern semantic interpretations and ignoring the ancients' liberal use of poetic devices, especially metonymy and metaphor.

I suppose AI would be in the box seat when it comes to future prospects for accurate replication of memes, but it depends who did the programming and training.

What it takes to be stupid, humanly stupid? I'm not sure, but if the makers of AI machines managed to build them with such qualities, we would be getting closer to achieving artificial sentience. It is ironic, since they seem to be working in the opposite direction.

It's baby steps at this early stage. When/if it's possible to recreate the sentience of a cockroach, perhaps researchers could try to giant leap to recreating the brain of a small lizard. It's a very long way from those relatively modest projects to mapping the fine details of human brain dynamics.

A cockroack would be quite an achievement.

I find it hard to think of sentience in terms of pure cognition devoid of agency, without self-regulating processes and autonomous behavior, so even though mapping the brain is part of what researchers must deal with, the problem extends to the whole Central Nervous System and the peripheral nervous system, as well as the endocrine system. If sentience implies self-awareness, I suppose having a lizard brain involves being aware of your lizard tail, among other things of your lizard world.

[Sunday66]

what a waste

Good choice. That's the best way out for you from the mess you put yourself into. It was going to be a wreckage.

You did not comprehend. You are a waste. All you do is write inane insults.

[Count Lucanor]

what a waste

Good choice. That's the best way out for you from the mess you put yourself into. It was going to be a wreckage.

You did not comprehend. You are a waste. All you do is write inane insults.

Insults are a symptom of anger, but people's foolishness cannot make me angry. I just feel pity.