In what way? — Isaac

If you honestly don't see in what way, I don't think it would be useful to explain it.

If you're genuinely interested, maybe have a think on it and see if you can discover for yourself in what way the phrase...

"it's not true that other humans are likely sentient"


...is a deployment of solipsism.

But solipsism can never be proved false. — Real Gone Cat

There is no need to prove it false because solipsism is psychologically impossible for a person to believe.

It's a philosophical parlor game. To deploy solipsism in defense of your position is to cease to do serious philosophy.

We can never be 100% sure of the sentience of others — Real Gone Cat

This is a philosophical parlor game.

You are 100% certain other persons are sentient. To claim otherwise is to speak in bad faith.




Actual solipsism only exists in a certain kind of schizophrenic. Even for a schizophrenic, it's unsustainable. See Louis A. Sass's Madness and Modernism.

Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us.
— hypericin

This is just not true. You have no data at all on which to assess probability. — Isaac

To say it's just not true that other humans are very likely sentient is to deploy solipsism.

To say it's not true that solipsism is likely false is to deploy solipsism to defend your position.

To deploy solipsism to defend your position is to cease to do serious philosophy.

Or both possibly insentient ... — 180 Proof

Suggesting the other is possibly insentient is to deploy solipsism.

To say "possibly solipsism" is to deploy solipsism. QED.

Now if I were to say...

:sweat: :up: ... Poor silly, 180 Proof — 180 Proof

...you should consider yourself insulted.

If you don't, it can only mean you've spent so much time on social media (TPF) that you no longer recognize an insult.

the simplest explanation isn't just that consciousness just is parts A and and B of the brain. — Isaac

Those who dismiss the hard problem can do no better than to call a part of the brain consciousness.

Yeah I remember reading about it. :smile:

... Poor silly, Zzz — 180 Proof

A rose by any other name....





I should have guessed you would eventually resort to insults. That's disappointing.

The LaMDA affair could be just a hoax after all. If people can't tell the difference between genuine and fake research, what else can't we do? — Agent Smith

They should do a study on it. :smile:

To my view our discussion here ventures into the realm of the dishonest so I'll take my leave. Again: it was good chatting. :smile:

Not exactly.

My position is: anyone who chooses to deploy solipsism to defend his position has ceased to do serious philosophy.

You know the Other is sentient.

And you're certain of it.

Solipsism is a parlor game.

Or both possibly insentient ... — 180 Proof

The Other doesn't belong to this category. The Other is sentient.

You know this. And you're certain of this. Solipsism is a parlor game.

The Other and the machine are being presented as co-equal members of a single category: the possibly sentient. By what justification?

By what justification should we view a machine through the same lens we view a human being?

Category mistake.



A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake?wprov=sfla1

My best guess now is he wants to be a cult leader. Get a bunch of LSD- and peyote- and psilocybin-drenched gullibles to say LaMDA is self-aware and it's done:

Burning Man.


Nothing against hallucinogens. :love:

"... Google wouldn't let us build one."

Silly.

As if he, as if anyone, even knows what such a framework would look like.

Clearest evidence he's playing us.

have no framework for evaluating its link to sentience. — Baden

Admitted above by Lemoine.

Debate-closing quote from Lemoine's Twitter:

So a religion thing.

We'll have a better picture of how silly or serious this debate is when they release the LaMDA chat app. I'll drop $.99 to get it to jabberwock.

Brilliant marketing scheme here if that's what it is.

Kinda done here till then. It's been fun, I've definitely learned something. About the Robot Rights movement.

I wouldn't call it an unshakable conviction or a certainty, but rather an encounter in a face-to-face relation. — Moliere

Maybe you wouldn't call it that. But it is that.

I see the difference. But there's an issue with your "encounter" focus.

It seems to diminish the seriousness of the "moral community" (of organisms; of human beings) to allow a machine to enter on the basis of one man's encounter.

Maybe I (one man) have had such an encounter with my sex doll. Does my sex doll therefore gain entrance as well? Certainly not.

Yep. That's exactly the claim Lemione is making. — Isaac

No, it isn't. He's only considering language output. I'm talking about behavior in a broader sense.

You keep repeating this claim but without any support whatsoever. On what grounds is your biological similarity key? — Isaac

I don't see a need to provide support for this. Seems like a quibble.

I'm not claiming it's good. — Isaac

Glad we agree here.



Every debate has to end somewhere. I rest my case. Good chatting. :smile:

That's not a very good reason to make such an extraordinary claim. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think the only way out here is to follow 180 Proof and say the claim that a machine is sentient is "not at all" extraordinary.

"It seems sentient." — Isaac

That's not a very good reason to make such an extraordinary claim. Many, many things seem to be X and turn out to be Y.

It's the very highest proof possible for sentience since there are no other agreed measures. — Isaac

Wrong in more than one way. Apart from the self-evidence of self-sentience, sentience can never be proven. It can only be accepted.

I accept that other human beings are sentient because I'm sentient and they look and behave like I do. Biologically, we're of the same species. As to other organisms, I accept that some of them are sentient - animals - and leave the question open in other cases - viruses, ameobas, etc.

But I can never prove my fellow human beings are sentient.

Yeah, it may be. And if it is, or he's gone mad, or is lying, or was on drugs or whatever, then any of those situations would constitute evidence that LaMDA is not sentient. — Isaac

Even if the man is completely sane, he's only one man. No one else has made his claim and many of his colleagues have claimed the opposite.

You've assumed he must be one of those things because you've already concluded LaMDA cannot be sentient. — Isaac

You're putting words in my mouth now. This suggests you have an agenda.

The argument is that is otherwise intelligent and sane people think it is sentient, countering their view by saying "it can't be, it's made of wires" is not only weak but has precisely the same pattern as previous denials of moral worth. You say "it must be biological" as if that were obvious, but the exact same "obviousness" was applied in the past to other criteria. — Isaac

I don't recall saying that.


At any rate, my most current formulation is:

Anyone claiming a machine might be sentient - an extraordinary claim - bears the burden of proof. — ZzzoneiroCosm

They should have a very, very, very good reason for making this claim.

The argument is that is otherwise intelligent and sane people think it is sentient — Isaac

To my knowledge one person has possibly* made this claim. His psychological history is unknown.


*It may be a promotional stunt.

People (intelligent, sane ones) consider certain instances of AI sentient. — Isaac

Can you provide an example of this apart from the engineer in question. On what basis do they consider it sentient?

Thanks :smile:

Not at all. — 180 Proof

That's a fundamental disagreement.

I'm satisfied with my answers to your questions. :smile:

Belief in exceptionalism of humans originates from religion, ie it is a religious belief. — Isaac

@Wayfarer

This is not a case of a "belief in the exceptionalism of humans." That's an imprecise assessment.

This is a case of the exceptionalism of some set of animals in contrast to machines. I'm not getting a religious vibe.

:smile:

I do not believe I am sentient because I produce words and I do not have any justification for believing other beings or things are sentient simply because they produce words. — Baden

This approach works well too.

It's more about the competitive navigation of the constraints of physical environments resulting in systems that need to adapt to such navigation developing reflexive mental processes beneficial to the propagation of their reproductive potentialities as instantiated in RNA/DNA. — Baden

Haha. Nice sentence. :smile:

Do you not agree that this claim - X machine might be sentient - is extraordinary?

Anyone making an extraordinary claim about anything bears the burden of proof — 180 Proof

Exactly.

Anyone claiming a machine might be sentient - an extraordinary claim - bears the burden of proof.

If one judges LaMDA to be intelligent, that is. — Real Gone Cat

The word 'intelligent' is malleable.

Some folks would say intelligence requires sentience. Some folks would call a smartphone intelligent. So it depends on the definition and the context of usage.

Is sentience judged by appearance or behavior? — Real Gone Cat

Sentience is an assumption based on the interactions of a community of same-species creatures.


Solipsism can never be disproven, only dismissed.