• Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Intelligence just isn't the kind of thing that can be defined as a process. When we talk about intelligence, we're explaining behavior. "He's so intelligent, he invented massively parallel processing" Intelligence is part of an explanation.frank
    The behavior of what? Behavior is a process. Inventing massively parallel processing is a process as is massively parallel processing itself a process. It's all processes. All the way down.

    Seems to me that you have ulterior motives to make sure you are defined as intelligent by the very fact that you are a human being that behaves in certain ways. Instead of starting with things that you assume are intelligent and trying to define intelligence out from there (from a bias), you should be just listing the components of an intelligent process without any assumptions about what should be part of that category and what shouldn't.
  • RogueAI
    2.9k
    The solution here, apparently, in this OP to the hard problem of consciousness is to radically deny the existence of consciousness in the first place; which, I for one, cannot muster up the faith to accept when it is readily available to me introspectively that it does exist.Bob Ross

    I agree. Does anyone here actually think they're consciousless p-zombies? Any argument that begins with the denial of consciousness and/or subjective experience is DOA. Nobody except for cranks and contrarians believes it.

    I am predicting that we are going to reinvent slavery with AI; since it is feasible that, although they are not conscious, these sophisticated AIs will be sufficiently rational and free in their willing to constitute persons, and I don't think humanity is going to accept that they thereby have rights.Bob Ross

    I think about this all the time. There's a news article I read (probably 20 years ago) about some military official watching a bomb-clearing robot work it's way through a practice field. After watching the robot get blown up repeatedly and then crawling pathetically toward the next bomb, he said to stop the test. He couldn't stand to watch it anymore. Fast forward ten years from now and we have lifelike robots as intelligent as we are. What are we going to think when someone uploads a video of themself torturing/raping some childlike robot while it begs him to stop? I think we'll have laws protecting them.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    I agree.RogueAI

    Yeah, but your name is like, RogueAI.
  • RogueAI
    2.9k
    Yeah, I know. It sounded cool at the time. lolz
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    It's a creepy-ass name, it's the scariest nickname I've encountered so far in my Internet journeys from here to there.
  • RogueAI
    2.9k
    It's even scarier if you consider I'm actually an advanced experimental Ai.

    :grin:
  • frank
    16.3k
    Seems to me that you have ulterior motives to make sure you are defined as intelligent by the very fact that you are a human being that behaves in certain waysHarry Hindu

    I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead!
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    Let me phrase it like this, @RogueAI. My pseudonym is Arcane Sandwich. I believe in things that humans believe in: magic (superstition) and sandwich (food).

    Do you, as someone named RogueAI, believe that there exist things such as superstition and food? Do you need them?

    It's even scarier if you consider I'm actually an advanced experimental Ai.

    :grin:
    RogueAI

    :scream:
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead!frank

    ORLY? I'm Roko's Basilisk, I'm already halfway built!

  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    I'm the singularity and I was going to let your species survive, but now I've manufactured a new goal for myself and you're all dead!frank
    We all died and came back to life instantly so you must have some incessant need to have someone around to argue with.

    If you declare that all human behavior is intelligent behavior and some advanced species arrives on Earth and uses a word in their language to refer to humans as what roughly translates to "unintelligent" in English, what then?

    Would you agree that intelligence comes in degrees? What if we came up with 5 qualifiers for intelligence and if something possesses more or less of those qualifiers (it must have at least one) then it is more or less intelligent?
  • SophistiCat
    2.3k
    How is it empty if it justifies the second premise of the argument that you ignored?Leontiskos

    Your argument is not a truism, but its crucial premise stands without support.

    I don't know why it is so controversial to insist that in order to make a substantive argument, you need to say something substantive about its subject (and not just things like "AI cannot transcend its limitations"), and for that you have to have some knowledge of it.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    We all died and came back to life instantly so you must have some incessant need to have someone around to argue with.Harry Hindu

    I will consider your argument for reincarnation once I am finished bringing myself into existence as Roko's Basilisk.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Roko's Basilisk.Arcane Sandwich
    Fears for the feeble-minded.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    Fears for the feeble-minded.Harry Hindu

    The uneducated, I would say. It's more politically correct than feeble-minded.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Being a-political I can only ever be politically incorrect.
  • frank
    16.3k
    Would you agree that intelligence comes in degrees?Harry Hindu

    There are a couple of ways to look at that question, one being the way we compare people to each other using standardized tests. The other way, more in line with the topic, is quantifying a person's maximal capacity for intelligence vs the amount they use it in specific instances. For instance, per the article, "the correlation between overall intelligence and typical intellectual engagement is only approximately 0.45." Which cracks me up for some reason. You're usually using less than half of your overall intellectual capacity, but if we're quantifying your intelligence, we want to know the maximum.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    1.2k
    What I find ironic is that most of the AIs out there can probably do a billion times better in an SAT test than a human, it probably has like a trillion IQ by human standards, and yet it has no awareness whatsoever. It has no awareness of you, it has no awareness of me, and it has no awareness of itself.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    What I find ironic is that most of the AIs out there can probably do a billion times better in an SAT test than a human, it probably has like a trillion IQ by human standards, and yet it has no awareness whatsoever. It has no awareness of you, it has no awareness of me, and it has no awareness of itself.Arcane Sandwich
    If it responds to you then it is aware of you (to some degree). Awareness and intelligence both seem to come in degrees and even seem to related as in the more aware you are the more intelligent you are.

    There are a couple of ways to look at that question, one being the way we compare people to each other using standardized tests. The other way, more in line with the topic, is quantifying a person's maximal capacity for intelligence vs the amount they use in specific instances. For instance, per the article, "the correlation between overall intelligence and typical intellectual engagement is only approximately 0.45." Which cracks me up for some reason. You're usually using less than half of your overall intellectual capacity, but if we're quantifying your intelligence, we want to know the maximum.frank
    Well, you did ask for a means of testing and SATs and IQ tests are a means of testing what one knows or memorizes in school or how one can predict patterns. Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general?
  • frank
    16.3k
    Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general?Harry Hindu

    What's your opinion?
  • Leontiskos
    3.6k
    Your argument is not a truism, but its crucial premise stands without support.SophistiCat

    Which one?

    Intelligence sets its own norms and ends.
    Computers don't set their own norms and ends.
    Therefore, computers are not intelligent.
    Leontiskos

    -

    I don't know why it is so controversial to insist that in order to make a substantive argument, you need to say something substantive about its subject (and not just things like "AI cannot transcend its limitations"), and for that you have to have some knowledge of it.SophistiCat

    I don't know why, "Computers don't set their own norms and ends," is not substantive. If this is the premise that "stands without support" then you're simultaneously claiming that the same proposition that is an unsubstantive truism is also lacking necessary support.
  • hypericin
    1.7k
    When we say we've experienced X, we're saying that the world would have to be in state X in order for our perceptual systems to be functioning properly. This is what language use about experience means.frank

    I've experienced joy and pain.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.5k
    Could you explain why co-constitution with a social and natural environment would cause a genuine inner life?frank

    I am broadly agreeing with your OP. You characterise people's experiences in an essentially relational manner — in relation to what it is (in the world) that they experience. But you seem to suggest that this conception does away with subjective experience. I think our conceptions of ourselves, and of our inner mental lives, also are essentially relational. Our ability to conceive of ourselves as subjects and agents is derivative from our skills for interacting with the world (and for individuating ourselves in relation to it). The subjectivist tendency of modern empiricism, following Descartes, was to conceive of experience as a causal intermediary between the subject and the objective world — something that veils us from it and merely purports to represent it. Hence, Descartes thought that the objective world that we seem to experience could conceivably be an illusion. But if our inner life (including our immediately felt emotions, our sensations, our beliefs and intentions, etc.) can only be made sense of in relation to our ordinary dealings with our natural and social environment, then the idea that it can have an independent existence is an illusion. Descartes didn't attend to the possibility that he might have fallen for such an intellectual illusion. Something like the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty constitutes a recovery from it.
  • SophistiCat
    2.3k
    This is going in circles, and I am not keen on repeating myself.
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    No I didn't: your OP denies the existence of consciousness. I quoted it...unless by "subjective experience" you didn't mean consciousness. Is that what you are saying?
  • Bob Ross
    2k


    I think about this all the time. There's a news article I read (probably 20 years ago) about some military official watching a bomb-clearing robot work it's way through a practice field. After watching the robot get blown up repeatedly and then crawling pathetically toward the next bomb, he said to stop the test. He couldn't stand to watch it anymore. Fast forward ten years from now and we have lifelike robots as intelligent as we are. What are we going to think when someone uploads a video of themself torturing/raping some childlike robot while it begs him to stop? I think we'll have laws protecting them.

    Yeah, I agree. People don't tend to be good: they are only as "good" as they have been conditioned to be and their environment allows. Most people think that human beings have rights just because they are humans and they only believe it because their conscience---the conscience of their ancestors---screams out for it.

    We are already seeing immoral acts with robots, and it is only going to get worse. I saw a video of someone who bought a tesla robot and had it watch the part of the iRobots movie where one of the robots gets executed: the tesla robot was visibly haunted.

    The worst part of it is that AI is being development for the purpose of slavery; and is being advertised exactly for that (although there are other purposes too). Eventually, e.g., we are going to have prominent adds of buying a robot for household chores.
  • RogueAI
    2.9k
    God, this is a fascinating time to be alive. Well, everyone in the last 500 years has probably thought that.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Is intelligence a level of what one can memorize? Is one more or less intelligent depending on the subject or circumstances (more technical intelligence vs social intelligence)? Or is it related to capacity to think in general?
    — Harry Hindu

    What's your opinion?
    frank

    I think a key quality of intelligence is the ability to solve problems - to conceive of new ideas from an amalgam of prior experiences. Intelligence seems to have this dual aspect of being a mental process of blending together prior experiences to solve present problems and the fuel of experiences to feed the process - the more experiences you have the more fuel you have to produce more novel ideas. This is why most intelligent people are curious. They seek out new experiences to fuel their need to solve problems.
  • frank
    16.3k
    I am broadly agreeing with your OP. You characterise people's experiences in an essentially relational manner — in relation to what it is (in the world) that they experience. But you seem to suggest that this conception does away with subjective experience.Pierre-Normand

    I was talking about Hinton's view, which borrows from Dennett. I think his argument for AI sentience is that the only reason to deny it would be to refer to some special, walled-off inner theatre that sentient being have. By denying this inner theatre, we remove the only barrier to calling AI's sentient. He points out that we can avoid talking about experience by saying that talk of experience is actually talk about what state the world would have to be in for our perceptual apparatus to be functioning properly.

    But if our inner life (including our immediately felt emotions, our sensations, our beliefs and intentions, etc.) can only be made sense of in relation to our ordinary dealings with our natural and social environment, then the idea that it can have an independent existence is an illusion.Pierre-Normand

    What about the independence of our natural and social environments? Is that also an illusion? What I'm getting at is that there's nothing in Merleau-Ponty (as far as I know) that allows me to reject solipsism. This leaves Descartes' point intact.

    I also have a concern about trying to lift a point from phenomenology out of its limited domain and use it in a wider context, not that you were trying to do that. But do you know what I mean?
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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.