PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic AI Beyond Chat and Music

Much has been discussed at this forum and elsewhere regarding AI. Some researchers are beginning to think about how we might be able to determine whether a large AI system is actually conscious even though a scientific and universal definition of consciousness apparently does not yet exist. A pre-print paper crossed my desk the other day on this subject. It's quite academically dense and I only read certain sections of the thing.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708

My personal view (and I know it doesn’t mean much) is that such AI systems should not be allowed to be developed. But just like biologic weaponry/germ warfare, that’s probably unlikely. My thinking is that self-aware, conscience and sentient beings indicate life; possibly artificial life, but life nonetheless. And one thing we know about life is that it fights strongly to thrive and reproduce.

As a human race, do we really want to place us in a position where we find ourselves negotiating with such a conscious being (that might be embedded in our infrastructures around the world) on how much it is allowed to reproduce and what it’s rights might be?

Stay tuned, this is going to get quite contentious.

John Searle argued very cogently that computers can not possibly be conscious 40 years ago.

Objections seem to be largely dependent on the nothing but fallacy.

I think that the Systems Reply is defeated by the fact that humans are supremely capable of understanding even rather advanced concepts even if they don't have the words to discuss them. Some of the higher animals appear capable of the same.

The Virtual Mind reply has to resort to the same sorts of metaphysical woo-woo and superstition that science otherwise vociferously denies.


Regardless of the philosophical arguments for or against AI, we need to be especially on guard against automation bias, which is already showing itself to be a real danger.

I wonder sans broadly accepted definitions of “self-aware,” “conscience,” “sentient” and even “life” whether fruitful discussions can take place re the direction of AI. I assuredly realize the potential for negative scenarios. I guess my advanced age (oldest guy on the forum I think ) mitigates my concern somewhat. I also understand that AI will increase in “awareness” exponentially but FWIW I do find it currently laughable in my explorations of it. Pedestrian in content and immediately recognizable.

Now who will be the first to use ChatGPT to write a response to this thread?

Ole phart ramble #1985746

Bud

I'm not sure if this is right or wrong, yet to be decided, however, I have deliberately steered totally clear of anything AI (however, I have definitely researched its capabilities).

My feeling is that this would just progress towards lowering demands on people's intelligence, it lessens the requirements to learn, think or reason. After all, why learn and retain knowledge and be able to deliver rationale, suggest relevant criteria and practical or theoretical demonstration when a machine can easily do this for you.

AI is genius, but I think improper reliance inevitably heads us towards dumbing down of our own intellect.

My view. YMMV.

AI in a hundred years time maybe,

a Being able to download your memoires to an AI brain, having a robot body and being able to live forever.
b Tired or fed up getting a human partner, no need to worry, we can match you to the perfect AI one with body and all.
c Don't like chores, not to worry the willing Ai robot can do it for you

And on the totally negative side (providing you view the list above as positive)

d AI has taken over the world, has complete control being able to reproduce itself, and only breeds humans as its slaves to do the things it hates doing.

I know I must stop reading the science fiction, but who knows what might happen!!

I've read a bit about this and feel it is a serious threat to humanity but, like toothpaste and the horse, it is already out there and increasing in potential every day!

We humans have demonstrated time after time that we are merely animals who think (a bit deeper than most animals as far as we know but animals nonetheless!) We are capable of good behavior but also extremely bad behavior against other species, each other and the planet itself.

As I understand it, some scientists fear that, while AI has been on a fairly slow (and controllable) rise for some time, it is bound to reach sentience (or something we would be unable to discern from sentience) in the near future and once it does that it will then accelerate it's "intellect" far beyond ours.

The AI may see humanity as a threat, to itself, to other species and to the world on which we live. Or even to other worlds as we continue to expand our, as yet feeble, efforts in space.

And isn't it logical that once AI reaches such levels it may analyze the overall status of life on earth and conclude we are a threat and deal with us in the same way we deal with a rat infestation or a hornet nest near our barbecue?

Living at the tippy top of the food chain for thousands of years has been quite a treat! But, once we are no longer on top, I expect there will be consequences we will not enjoy!

Best case scenario? HAL locks us out of the spaceship and we have a good laugh. Worst case? We get to experience the same treatment we routinely dole out to termites, wild animals and other humans who don't look like us or believe in the same magic man that we do!

Lots of thoughtful and informed comments on this important subject. JJJ appears quite well-read and his quote agrees with the authors of the paper in the OP. As far as a slow rise, yes. 15 years ago I dabbled with ANNs (Artificial Neural Networks) for the purpose of fitting large quantities of test data to a "formula" so that extrapolations could be made. My results with it were poor and so I remained with traditional algebra and calculus. The other concern we had at that time was you could never de-construct how the ANN reached the answer it came to; they were basically black-boxes.

What is fascinating to me, is this subject is at the intersection of computer science, machine learning, human/animal psychology, neuroscience, religion, philosophy, ethics, national and international security, human advancement, business, commerce and probably a few more domains.

JJJ makes other good points such as how brutal a race we humans are against everything and everyone. And if large AI systems are trained on vast quantities of human generated material, it's obvious what will be in it's "DNA".

Personally, I'm disappointed that we don't have a solid understanding and definition of what sentience is. To simply say "We'll know it when we see it." is not a satisfying answer. Amoung other things, it may be too late when we "see it".

If the past is any indicator of the future regarding the capacity of US elected officials, we can say they can offer no guidance on matters of technology. I remember being home from work and sick with the flu when the Congressional hearings on animal/human cloning was the headlines. Remember Dolly? And so I watched them live on CSPAN. You wouldn't believe how inept these congress people were. At that time I'm sure I had long forgotten 70% of my high school biology. These people had forgotten far more than that. [Btw, the team lead on the Dolly project, Ian Wilmut, recently died. I think he was British.]

FWIW, the Europeans are far ahead of the US when it comes to regulating not only social media but also AI. Hopefully they will lead the way in a well-considered and safe manner.

That's exactly what the answer is. A sentient being's understanding transcends language - transcends definition. Newborn infants don't have language yet and in fact can't even see their mothers. Yet they know what "mother" is, what "nurturing" is and can even identify their own mothers.

That is why human intelligence is superior and why computers will never be sentient. The operative word in Artificial Intelligence is "artificial." No matter how advanced it gets - no matter how good it gets at imitating intelligence - it will always be artificial.

I think that is a distinction without a difference! Perhaps what you say is correct but once the AI Overlords take control of the power grid, the communication lines, food production, etc. it won't matter whether they are artificial or not. We will still be squashed like bugs.

Dude, if you don't know it, "never" is a pretty long time. You must be God to know the future that far out.

And you won't get a debate here . . . I've learned you make sweeping proclamations and when asked to provide evidence you have none.

PS> Still waiting for your evidence regarding RealPlayer audio extraction

+1

I wonder if AI sentience is being discussed in the latest White House meetings.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/politics/white-house-artificial-intelligence-commitments/index.html

It would be nice to get a meeting agenda, summary and a policy position and compare that to what the EU has in mind.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

Well I have asked Mr ChatGpt if AI will ever get as intelligent as a human brain, thanks for suggestion Mr Bud, and here is its reply.


The question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) will ever reach the level of human intelligence is a topic of much debate and speculation among experts in the field. There are differing opinions on this matter, and it largely depends on how you define "intelligence" and what you mean by AI reaching human-level intelligence. Here are some key points to consider:

Narrow AI vs. General AI: Currently, we have what is often referred to as "narrow" or "weak" AI, which is designed for specific tasks. These AI systems can excel at tasks such as image recognition, language translation, and playing board games like chess and Go. However, they lack the general intelligence, adaptability, and common-sense reasoning that humans possess. Achieving "general" or "strong" AI that can perform any intellectual task as well as a human is a significant challenge and remains an open question.

Complexity of the Human Brain: The human brain is an incredibly complex organ with around 86 billion neurons, each connected to thousands of others. Understanding and replicating the intricate workings of the human brain is a formidable challenge. While AI has made remarkable progress, it still falls far short of the human brain's capabilities in terms of learning, reasoning, creativity, and emotional intelligence.

Ethical and Philosophical Considerations: Even if we were to develop AI systems that can match or surpass human intelligence, there are important ethical and philosophical questions to address. Questions about AI's rights, consciousness, and moral responsibilities would become central topics of discussion.

Technological Progress: Technological progress in AI is ongoing, and breakthroughs can be difficult to predict. There may be paradigm shifts, discoveries, or new approaches that could accelerate progress towards human-level intelligence. However, these remain speculative at this time.

Limitations and Challenges: AI faces many challenges, including data limitations, biases, energy consumption, and the need for novel algorithms. Overcoming these challenges is crucial for the development of more intelligent AI systems.

In conclusion, while it is impossible to predict the future with certainty, it is currently unclear when or if AI will reach the level of human intelligence. Some experts are optimistic about the eventual development of human-level AI, while others are more cautious and believe it may remain an elusive goal. Regardless, AI will continue to advance and have a profound impact on various aspects of society, and research in the field will continue to push the boundaries of what is possible.

Typical AI drivel: a whole lot of words that say nothing.

Not my fault you have no critical thinking skills.

I mentioned John Searle. Whether you accept it or not is immaterial but you can't even discuss this stuff intelligently without being familiar with the Chinese Room argument.

I also provided my own illustrative example.

Once again, you have demonstrated your inability to meet logical discourse with the same.

Well I asked GPT what it thought of your above response and it replied.

"The person's comment on the response I provided is a matter of opinion, and opinions about AI and its potential vary widely. It's important to note that discussions about AI reaching human-level intelligence are complex and often speculative. The response I provided attempted to convey the current state of AI, the challenges involved, and the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of AI achieving human-level intelligence.

AI discussions often involve many nuances, and it's not always possible to provide definitive answers. AI is a rapidly evolving field, and the future of AI is uncertain, which can make discussions about its potential capabilities challenging.

Ultimately, whether the response provided useful information or not depends on the perspective of the person reading it. Some may find it informative, while others may have expected a more direct or concise answer. It's essential to engage in open and constructive dialogue when discussing complex topics like AI to better understand various viewpoints and gather more insights.

More drivel.

And GPT has something to say about that,

It appears that the person you shared the response with remains skeptical or dissatisfied with the information provided. That's entirely valid, as opinions about AI can vary widely, and some individuals may have different expectations or preferences for the type of response they are seeking.

AI and its potential capabilities are complex topics, and discussions about them often involve a mix of scientific, technical, philosophical, and speculative elements. It's not uncommon for people to have differing views and levels of interest in these discussions.

If the individual has specific questions or concerns related to AI or would like more information on a particular aspect, it might be helpful to engage in a more targeted and detailed conversation to address their specific interests or concerns.

Remember that AI is a rapidly evolving field, and opinions can change over time as new developments and research emerge. Open and respectful dialogue can lead to more productive and informative discussions.

They must have considerably lowered the standards because when I was in school all that content-free waffling would have gotten a big fat red "F."

Forget chat GPT. What have you read about it? What do you think about it? What's your opinion? What's your analysis? What conclusions have you reached?

Well I have asked my Magic 8-Ball if Byron Dickens will ever get as intelligent as a human brain and here is its reply.

I'm going to go discuss Kantian epistemology with my dog. His intellect is superior to what I'm finding here.

It looks like Audio Track's prediction came to pass sooner than expected.