• J
    1.7k
    No no, that's a duck -- or a rabbit. Witt will explain.
  • Wayfarer
    24.6k
    :lol: If you want to bake a rabbit pie, first catch your duck.
  • Hanover
    13.8k
    Could we show ChatGPT what pain is? It does not have the mechanism required, obviously. But moreover it cannot participate in the "form of life" that would enable it to be in pain.Banno

    This is my problem:

    “If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.” -- Philosophical Investigations §223
    “To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life.” -- §19

    Is ChatGPT a lion?

    If we rely on §19 and say he is a lion based upon its failure to engage in "form of life," then we cannot understand it per §223, which is false, because we can understand it.

    To say that AI does not engage in a form of life asks for a definition of "form of life," which I take to be:

    "Only of a living human being and what resembles (behaves like) a living human being can one say: it has sensations; it sees; is blind; hears; is deaf; is conscious or unconscious."-- §281

    This seems arbitrary. Why must a form of life have these attributes as opposed to identifying functionality, meaning, why must it look like a person to be a person. Why can't it just not act like a person to be a person.

    By requiring human like physical attributes to deny AI being a lion strikes me as a cop out. That is not behavior. But to do otherwise would lead to the problem of explaining what the non-lion does internally, and that is forbidden. It is a private state that cannot be described.

    But should we say that the properly behaved AI model does pass the Turing test, we're left with it not being a lion and it engaging in real language.

    This might be a long winded way of saying that if "form of life" is knowable only by what is publically available, and it is convincing, then AI is a form of life, and we can't say such things as it doesn't have real stakes in the outcome of things or whatnot because that is extrapolating the contents of the mental state. If it act like a duck, it must be a duck. We can't assume otherwise just because it doesn't have the physical appearance of a duck.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.