Materialism poses its weight on the concept of matter, stating that material stuff is the essence of existence. Everything else, including consciousness, has to be explained in terms of attributes of the physical world. Mind is only an epi-phenomenon due to the complexity of some material things — Pez
Problem with all the mental operations and events is its privateness to the owners of the minds. No one will ever access what the other minds owners think, feel, intent ... etc. Mental events can only be construed with the actions of the agents and languages they speak by the other minds.AI is different though. Not even the designer can predict what will happen as these programs in a certain way program themselves and are able to learn depending on the scope of available data. — Pez
Give AI senses and the possibility to act, then the difference to human behaviour will diminish on the long run. Does this mean that we are just sophisticated machines and all talk about freedom of choice and responsibility towards our actions is just wishful thinking?
Yes, AI can think if we know how we think
Whether purely silicone based systems can produce sentience seems impossible to answer currently. Finding evidence of silicone-based life, while unlikely, would really shake this up. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The complexity of integrated circuits in modern computers approaches rapidly the complexity of the human brain. Traditional computer-programs give the program a limited range and programmers can quite easily foresee the possible outcomes. AI is different though. Not even the designer can predict what will happen as these programs in a certain way program themselves and are able to learn depending on the scope of available data. — Pez
Correct. Unfortunately, we don't know how we think so we cannot design an AI that can think.Or maybe rather, "we could determine that AI was thinking if we knew how we thought?" But we don't, and therein lies the massive hole at the center of this debate.
But for those who deny the possibility... — Count Timothy von Icarus
What do you mean by "sentient" & "mind of its own"? Do you believe these properties are attributes of human beings? If so, why do you believe this? And, assuming it's possible, would these properties be functionally identical instantiated in an AI-system as they are embodied in a human? Why or why not?Is it in principle possible or impossible that some future AI might be sentient or have a mind of its own? — flannel jesus
As for me, I've yet to find any compelling arguments for why in principle a machine cannot be built (either by h. sapiens and/or machines) that functionally exceeds whatever biological kluge (e.g. primate brain) nature adaptively spawns by environmental trial & error, and also since the concept-prospect does not violate any (current) physical laws, I see no reason (yet) to assume, or suspect, that "sentient AI" is a physical/technological impossibility. — 180 Proof
How would we know we developed sentient AI? I would think whatever criteria we used to determine that would be used to evaluate all computing devices. Entire classes of them would likely be ruled out, known to not have the required element.OK, let's suppose we develop sentient AI. Do we then have to reevaluate sentience for all the computing devices we didn't think were sentient? — RogueAI
How would we know we developed sentient AI? I would think whatever criteria we used to determine that would be used to evaluate all computing devices. Entire classes of them would likely be ruled out, known to not have the required element. — Patterner
Nowadays AI would quite easily pass this test, if not now, so in the foreseeable future. Does this mean, that modern-day computers actually are able to think like human beings? Or even, that they have consciousness like we have? — Pez
The Turing Test, devised by Alan Turing in 1950, is a measure of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. Turing proposed that if a human evaluator could not consistently tell the machine apart from a human based on their responses to questions, the machine could be considered to have passed the test. The focus is on the imitation of the external behavior of intelligent beings, not on the internal thought processes.
Modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including chatbots and language models, have become increasingly sophisticated, making it more challenging to distinguish their outputs from human responses in certain contexts. However, passing the Turing Test does not necessarily mean that computers are able to think like human beings. Here's why:
1. **Imitation vs. Understanding**: AI can mimic the patterns of human conversation and generate responses that seem human-like, but this does not imply understanding or consciousness. The AI does not possess self-awareness, emotions, or genuine understanding of the content it processes; it operates through algorithms and data.
2. **Narrow AI vs. General AI**: Most modern AIs are examples of narrow AI, designed to perform specific tasks, such as language translation, playing a game, or making recommendations. They are not capable of general intelligence, which would involve understanding and reasoning across a broad range of domains with human-like adaptability.
3. **Lack of Consciousness**: Consciousness and subjective experience are fundamental aspects of human thought. Current AI lacks consciousness and the ability to experience the world subjectively. The process of thought, as humans experience it, involves not just responding to stimuli or questions but also emotions, motivations, and a continuous stream of internal dialogue and reflection.
4. **Different Processing Mechanisms**: Human brains and computers operate in fundamentally different ways. Human thought is the product of biological processes, evolved over millions of years, involving complex interactions among neurons and various brain regions. AI, on the other hand, processes information through algorithms and computational methods that do not replicate the biological processes of human thought.
While AI can simulate certain aspects of human thinking and may pass the Turing Test, it does so without the underlying consciousness, emotions, and genuine understanding that characterize human thought. The development of AI that truly thinks and understands like a human being would require not just advancements in computational techniques but also a deeper understanding of consciousness and human cognition, which remains a significant scientific and philosophical challenge. — ChatGPT
AI is unlikely to be sentient like humans without the human biological body. — Corvus
Without 2x hands AI cannot prove the existence of the external world, for instance. — Corvus
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
AIs are machines designed to carry out certain tasks efficiently and intelligently, hence they are the tools to serve humans. — Corvus
How do you prove that they have human sentience? Just because they can sense, and respond to certain situations and input data, it doesn't mean they have feelings, emotions and autonomous intentions of their own.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. — Agree-to-Disagree
Suppose bacteria would be more close to humans, because at least they are living beings. Not sure on the claim that humans serve bacteria. Do they not cooperate each other for their own survivals?Humans are biological machines which carry out certain tasks for bacteria. Hence humans are tools to serve bacteria. — Agree-to-Disagree
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.