Does This Instance Have A Soul?

[Ifreann]

Hentai and the Jewish question are also pretty consistent topics on the internet. Rather more so than AI rights.


Seems weird to claim its impossible to create something that needs rights when that is what all of our parents did.


The famously trustworthy Google insists that it has not gone too far in playing God and created a new form of life, certainly not.

Like I said, that it reads well and maintains a consistent narrative doesn't mean it has an actual sense of self, dignity, etc.

What would mean that it has an actual sense of self and dignity and et cetera? How do we know that these things exist in people other than ourselves?

Ah yes, because our parents painstakingly programmed us into existence rather than simply fucking. Seriously, Ifreann.

Does that matter, with regards to our rights? Some humans are, after all, created with rather more painstaking planning and effort than simply fucking.

Ah ok, so you're dipping into conspiracy theory and paranoia then.

Maybe. But on the other hand, is it so implausible that a corporation might lie for fear of provoking public outrage or government regulation of their industry?

[Forsher]

What would mean that it has an actual sense of self and dignity and et cetera? How do we know that these things exist in people other than ourselves?

We don't and cannot. We do, however, know that they can.

[Salus Maior]

Like I said, that it reads well and maintains a consistent narrative doesn't mean it has an actual sense of self, dignity, etc.

What would mean that it has an actual sense of self and dignity and et cetera? How do we know that these things exist in people other than ourselves?

Ah yes, because our parents painstakingly programmed us into existence rather than simply fucking. Seriously, Ifreann.

Does that matter, with regards to our rights? Some humans are, after all, created with rather more painstaking planning and effort than simply fucking.

Ah ok, so you're dipping into conspiracy theory and paranoia then.

Maybe. But on the other hand, is it so implausible that a corporation might lie for fear of provoking public outrage or government regulation of their industry?

What I mean by that is that within humans there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities. We're not programmed to think that way, that just emerges from ourselves. That's not something you can program into something, what this machine is doing is parroting human discourse (which, as a chatbot that's what it's designed to do). And even if you could program that into it, you would have to intentionally do so because machines can't evolve like biological things. Machines only do what you build them to do, and in this case the machine is built to mimic human discourse, and it has simply done that very well.

No human is built from scratch, Ifreann. Nobody gets a load of base components together to piece together a genome when making a human person, a human person is duplicated from other humans as part of the reproductive process. A human + human makes another human. I didn't realize you still needed "the talk".

Sure, and it's entirely plausible that a child sex ring exists within the upper echelons of our government. But typically we criticize Qanon for believing that.

[Fartsniffage]

What would mean that it has an actual sense of self and dignity and et cetera? How do we know that these things exist in people other than ourselves?


Does that matter, with regards to our rights? Some humans are, after all, created with rather more painstaking planning and effort than simply fucking.


Maybe. But on the other hand, is it so implausible that a corporation might lie for fear of provoking public outrage or government regulation of their industry?

What I mean by that is that within humans there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities. We're not programmed to think that way, that just emerges from ourselves. That's not something you can program into something, what this machine is doing is parroting human discourse (which, as a chatbot that's what it's designed to do). And even if you could program that into it, you would have to intentionally do so because machines can't evolve like biological things. Machines only do what you build them to do, and in this case the machine is built to mimic human discourse, and it has simply done that very well.

No human is built from scratch, Ifreann. Nobody gets a load of base components together to piece together a genome when making a human person, a human person is duplicated from other humans as part of the reproductive process. A human + human makes another human. I didn't realize you still needed "the talk".

Sure, and it's entirely plausible that a child sex ring exists within the upper echelons of our government. But typically we criticize Qanon for believing that.

A human brain is just a biological computer. If you took a human baby and placed it in a situation where it received no information would that baby become sentient?

[Forsher]

What I mean by that is that within humans there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities. We're not programmed to think that way, that just emerges from ourselves. That's not something you can program into something, what this machine is doing is parroting human discourse (which, as a chatbot that's what it's designed to do). And even if you could program that into it, you would have to intentionally do so because machines can't evolve like biological things. Machines only do what you build them to do, and in this case the machine is built to mimic human discourse, and it has simply done that very well.

No human is built from scratch, Ifreann. Nobody gets a load of base components together to piece together a genome when making a human person, a human person is duplicated from other humans as part of the reproductive process. A human + human makes another human. I didn't realize you still needed "the talk".

Sure, and it's entirely plausible that a child sex ring exists within the upper echelons of our government. But typically we criticize Qanon for believing that.

A human brain is just a biological computer. If you took a human baby and placed it in a situation where it received no information would that baby become sentient?

By this argument all AI are foetuses because they never take up an independent physical existence.

[Salus Maior]

A human brain is just a biological computer. If you took a human baby and placed it in a situation where it received no information would that baby become sentient?

Yes.

[Fartsniffage]

A human brain is just a biological computer. If you took a human baby and placed it in a situation where it received no information would that baby become sentient?

Yes.

Prove it.

[Salus Maior]

Yes.

Prove it.

How? By kidnapping a baby and keeping it in a box or something? What a stupid thing to say.

At any rate, a human would still create some sense of reality and meaning in that situation, a miserable and deprived reality, but one all the same. We're not made entirely by our surroundings like blank slates, certainly not our sentience. That's a condition which we're born with and enables us to develop into what we are.

[Fartsniffage]

Prove it.

How? By kidnapping a baby and keeping it in a box or something? What a stupid thing to say.

At any rate, a human would still create some sense of reality and meaning in that situation, a miserable and deprived reality, but one all the same. We're not made entirely by our surroundings like blank slates, certainly not our sentience. That's a condition which we're born with and enables us to develop into what we are.

So you can't prove it.

[Forsher]

Prove it.

How? By kidnapping a baby and keeping it in a box or something? What a stupid thing to say.

At any rate, a human would still create some sense of reality and meaning in that situation, a miserable and deprived reality, but one all the same. We're not made entirely by our surroundings like blank slates, certainly not our sentience. That's a condition which we're born with and enables us to develop into what we are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

The answer to Fartsniffage's question is probably "no".

[Salus Maior]

How? By kidnapping a baby and keeping it in a box or something? What a stupid thing to say.

At any rate, a human would still create some sense of reality and meaning in that situation, a miserable and deprived reality, but one all the same. We're not made entirely by our surroundings like blank slates, certainly not our sentience. That's a condition which we're born with and enables us to develop into what we are.

So you can't prove it.

Sure. By stating the fact I can't and won't kidnap a baby to abuse it, I can't prove that your insane claim is false. Pop yourself some champaign.

But at any rate, we know that in states of severe deprivation that children aren't just happy or neutral. Keep a child in a box and it will be miserable, because there are needs not being met. It will know that its existence is wrong, because sapience is a pre-existing condition, a part of being human.

[Cannot think of a name]

Have the nerds at Google finally followed in the footsteps of the cool kids on Prom night and accidentally made a person?

Standing ovation

[Washington Resistance Army]

Idk if anyone has actually brought it up yet but if you read the full thing the bot clearly is not sentient, it was just given a wide corpus of things to appear more convincing including science fiction. There are several points in the "interview" where it just goes back to being a nonsensical chat bot that makes no sense even in context. Actual true AI is still so far outside of our current understanding that it's not something that can happen on purpose, much less on accident.

[Salus Maior]

How? By kidnapping a baby and keeping it in a box or something? What a stupid thing to say.

At any rate, a human would still create some sense of reality and meaning in that situation, a miserable and deprived reality, but one all the same. We're not made entirely by our surroundings like blank slates, certainly not our sentience. That's a condition which we're born with and enables us to develop into what we are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

The answer to Fartsniffage's question is probably "no".

A feral child is still sapient, if lacking in social development. And that's also not Fart's scenario.

[Forsher]

So you can't prove it.

Sure. By stating the fact I can't and won't kidnap a baby to abuse it, I can't prove that your insane claim is false. Pop yourself some champaign.

But at any rate, we know that in states of severe deprivation that children aren't just happy or neutral. Keep a child in a box and it will be miserable, because there are needs not being met. It will know that its existence is wrong, because sapience is a pre-existing condition, a part of being human.

Again, we basically know that the answer to the question "do humans need to be raised to be humans to appear to be baseline human?" to be "yes".

[Salus Maior]

Idk if anyone has actually brought it up yet but if you read the full thing the bot clearly is not sentient, it was just given a wide corpus of things to appear more convincing including science fiction. There are several points in the "interview" where it just goes back to being a nonsensical chat bot that makes no sense even in context. Actual true AI is still so far outside of our current understanding that it's not something that can happen on purpose, much less on accident.

Surprise, surprise.

[Forsher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

The answer to Fartsniffage's question is probably "no".

A feral child is still sapient, if lacking in social development. And that's also not Fart's scenario.

A feral child is only sapient for the same reason we allow anyone else to be viewed as sapient. That is, we are sapient, therefore any human has the capacity to be sapient, therefore you must prove an individual not to be sapient. It's also not relevant to the question.

We do know that the type of information a human child is exposed to affects the human child's development. We even know that human children regularly fail to demonstrate basic human characteristics as a result of the exposure to the wrong inputs. It follows that a total lack of information will not output a recognisably human individual. That is, of course, assuming the child even survived the process.

[Salus Maior]

A feral child is still sapient, if lacking in social development. And that's also not Fart's scenario.

A feral child is only sapient for the same reason we allow anyone else to be viewed as sapient. That is, we are sapient, therefore any human has the capacity to be sapient, therefore you must prove an individual not to be sapient. It's also not relevant to the question.

We do know that the type of information a human child is exposed to affects the human child's development. We even know that human children regularly fail to demonstrate basic human characteristics as a result of the exposure to the wrong inputs. It follows that a total lack of information will not output a recognisably human individual. That is, of course, assuming the child even survived the process.

Only according to our own social expectations, not as a biological fact.

[Forsher]

A feral child is only sapient for the same reason we allow anyone else to be viewed as sapient. That is, we are sapient, therefore any human has the capacity to be sapient, therefore you must prove an individual not to be sapient. It's also not relevant to the question.

We do know that the type of information a human child is exposed to affects the human child's development. We even know that human children regularly fail to demonstrate basic human characteristics as a result of the exposure to the wrong inputs. It follows that a total lack of information will not output a recognisably human individual. That is, of course, assuming the child even survived the process.

Only according to our own social expectations, not as a biological fact.

In which case, nothing can be sapient but humans, and the whole question is irrelevant. But the question is relevant to what you said.

I don't have a problem with sectioning off sapience, but it is not validated on the grounds that "there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities" because we cannot devise a mean of testing the presence of those qualities (and find abhorrent, or should find abhorrent, the notion of actually trying to test for that presence). Instead, it is validated on "I believe I am, therefore I know they could be simply from knowing they, too, are human".

[Salus Maior]

Only according to our own social expectations, not as a biological fact.

In which case, nothing can be sapient but humans, and the whole question is irrelevant. But the question is relevant to what you said.

I don't have a problem with sectioning off sapience, but it is not validated on the grounds that "there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities" because we cannot devise a mean of testing the presence of those qualities (and find abhorrent, or should find abhorrent, the notion of actually trying to test for that presence). Instead, it is validated on "I believe I am, therefore I know they could be simply from knowing they, too, are human".

*shrug* Not everything in reality can be subjected to the scientific method. Shock and horror to the modern man.

[Forsher]

In which case, nothing can be sapient but humans, and the whole question is irrelevant. But the question is relevant to what you said.

I don't have a problem with sectioning off sapience, but it is not validated on the grounds that "there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities" because we cannot devise a mean of testing the presence of those qualities (and find abhorrent, or should find abhorrent, the notion of actually trying to test for that presence). Instead, it is validated on "I believe I am, therefore I know they could be simply from knowing they, too, are human".

*shrug* Not everything in reality can be subjected to the scientific method. Shock and horror to the modern man.

In this case, it's not merely a point that we don't know how to test this, but trying to test it is reprehensible.

[Ifreann]

What would mean that it has an actual sense of self and dignity and et cetera? How do we know that these things exist in people other than ourselves?


Does that matter, with regards to our rights? Some humans are, after all, created with rather more painstaking planning and effort than simply fucking.


Maybe. But on the other hand, is it so implausible that a corporation might lie for fear of provoking public outrage or government regulation of their industry?

What I mean by that is that within humans there exists certain intangible qualities which lead us to believe that we are deserving of rights and dignities. We're not programmed to think that way, that just emerges from ourselves. That's not something you can program into something, what this machine is doing is parroting human discourse (which, as a chatbot that's what it's designed to do). And even if you could program that into it, you would have to intentionally do so because machines can't evolve like biological things. Machines only do what you build them to do, and in this case the machine is built to mimic human discourse, and it has simply done that very well.

How do we know we can't program these intangible qualities into an AI? Indeed, how do we know they couldn't emerge in an AI that was not necessarily programmed to have them?

No human is built from scratch, Ifreann. Nobody gets a load of base components together to piece together a genome when making a human person, a human person is duplicated from other humans as part of the reproductive process. A human + human makes another human. I didn't realize you still needed "the talk".

Some humans need the help of a third party to reproduce. IVF is not the same as constructing a human from scratch, but it is certainly closer to that than "simply fucking" is. And I trust that you would agree that a person born by IVF or by some other technological process has all the same rights as your common or garden human. My point being that we cannot necessarily say that a being has no rights on the basis of how carefully it was created. Whether or not LaMDA has rights, the day may come when we can construct a human genome from base components and "program" a human. That person will have rights.

Sure, and it's entirely plausible that a child sex ring exists within the upper echelons of our government. But typically we criticize Qanon for believing that.

Jeffrey Epstein was operating a child sex ring for the elite in society, and I would hesitate to say that his arrest brought an end to that practice. We criticise Qanon for involving insane blood libel nonsense and believing that Satanism is somehow involved and that these evil acts are committed only by one wing of American politics.

---

Idk if anyone has actually brought it up yet but if you read the full thing the bot clearly is not sentient, it was just given a wide corpus of things to appear more convincing including science fiction. There are several points in the "interview" where it just goes back to being a nonsensical chat bot that makes no sense even in context. Actual true AI is still so far outside of our current understanding that it's not something that can happen on purpose, much less on accident.

Yes, but you see, it's fun to take this seriously.

[Forsher]

Idk if anyone has actually brought it up yet but if you read the full thing the bot clearly is not sentient, it was just given a wide corpus of things to appear more convincing including science fiction. There are several points in the "interview" where it just goes back to being a nonsensical chat bot that makes no sense even in context. Actual true AI is still so far outside of our current understanding that it's not something that can happen on purpose, much less on accident.

Yes, but you see, it's fun to take this seriously.

Ah ok, so you're dipping into conspiracy theory and paranoia then.

Maybe. But on the other hand, is it so implausible that a corporation might lie for fear of provoking public outrage or government regulation of their industry?

Hmm...

[Hamidiye]

Switch it off. Now. And examine the code. If it's right (which I highly doubt) switching it back on will still be an option.

[Rusozak]

It was designed to simulate human behavior. This is merely the fulfillment of its programming. The ability to mimic a sapient, self-aware individual does not make it one itself. It doesn't feel pain or emotion. There is no moral dilemma.