tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post7254107465796510118..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: More People Might Soon Think Robots Are Conscious and Deserve RightsEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-23378902075059863122021-05-11T17:08:08.024-07:002021-05-11T17:08:08.024-07:00It seems to me that the current output of GPT-3 is...It seems to me that the current output of GPT-3 is just as, if not more, sensible than the speech of some people with Wernicke's aphasia. It has the ability to communicate meaningfully for a few paragraphs or more, but when it eventually makes mistakes I find myself reminded of the writing of internet crackpots.<br /><br />For example I saw one guy the other day talking about how Graham's Number could crash your consciousness and whether Ramanujan could hold Graham's Number in his brain. Or there was one guy who listed half a dozen things which were dual to each other in every comment (entropy dual to syntropy, deduction dual to induction, noumenal dual to phenomenal...) and said that duality unlocked the fifth law of thermodynamics.<br /><br />It's like these people are rhetoric machines mashing concepts together without really understanding them, which is exactly how GPT-3 feels sometimes. And then I wonder if there are some people doing this more successfully, which is kind of a creepy idea. Is there a word for the type of zombie which is conscious, passes a Turing test, yet operates in the way GPT-3 is thought to, without real understanding?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14365300321766404102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-47490451229673970672021-04-03T10:27:20.203-07:002021-04-03T10:27:20.203-07:00Why would an intelligent machine want to pass the ...Why would an intelligent machine want to pass the Turing Test ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-58855617220753247582021-03-24T10:26:42.521-07:002021-03-24T10:26:42.521-07:00Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! Ezra, ...Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! Ezra, especially, that's a super interesting perspective!Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-60023352445118792702021-03-12T11:49:31.125-08:002021-03-12T11:49:31.125-08:00Today philosophers could try to understand "m...Today philosophers could try to understand "multi (sensory) receptor regeneration history" with natural physiologists and artificial physiologists...the limits of our bodies boundaries in space...Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-8337798026618774342021-03-10T22:14:06.332-08:002021-03-10T22:14:06.332-08:00I think the difference between those robots and a ...I think the difference between those robots and a snail and other biological organisms are in replication. Even the smallest biological organism can replicate itself and reproduce when DNA 's are cloned. Till the time when those robots can replicate on their own, we will see them as different. stackoverflow1453https://www.blogger.com/profile/02824505112415651332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27687944879565600212021-03-10T22:12:37.477-08:002021-03-10T22:12:37.477-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.stackoverflow1453https://www.blogger.com/profile/02824505112415651332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-67459870070799641262021-03-10T01:06:19.645-08:002021-03-10T01:06:19.645-08:00Even before people give robot rights on its own, i...Even before people give robot rights on its own, it'll have legal rights due to being the property of the mall owner, who has a lot more clout than your random person of low economic or social status. <br /><br />A few years ago, there was a case where a robot ran over a kid in Stanford mall (who was not seriously harmed), and no one blamed the robot, nor the mall owner. Around the same time though, the same model robot was harrassed (but not seriously harmed) by a drunk a few counties over in Mountain View, and the person was arrested. From the different way the 2 cases were covered by the press and treated by the legal system, you can already say that model of robot (a type of mall cop) has more rights than your ordinary pedestrian.<br /><br />Similarly, consider if you're being harassed by a paparazzi drone who's trying to take pictures of you. It might be intruding on your privacy, but you can't do much to stop it. It's too dumb / it's not programmed to respond to requests to stay away. And if you engage in self-help to disable it, you'll probably be arrested for destroying the property of the drone owner. Practically, the drone's rights to violate your privacy exceeds your rights to privacy.<br /><br />Right now, your only recourse is lobbying for bespoke legislation. If you're a firefighter, and a drone gets in the way of you doing your job, the state legislature might pass a law prohibiting drone owners from doing so. Likewise if you're harrased by a marketing robo caller, together with a group of other angry voters, you might get them to pass a law mandating a Do-Not-Call List (but one that conveniently excludes political surveys). How many other people can get bespoke legislation passed to protect their interest against robots?<br /><br />Treating the robot as a person will only appreciably shift the balance in terms of the robots have more rights against its "owners". To give third parties more rights against the robot, you'll have to introduce the concept of "duties" to robots & their owners, and the ability to punish (jail or disable) the robot/robot type/robot software type or sanction/de-license the robot owner for robot-crimes or robot-failings. That'll probably take another generation after robots get rights.<br /><br />The way robot behavior is subtly privileged against people's normal/natural/social recourses will break human moral systems faster than any idea of robot personhood. In a way, google's/FB's black box algorithms and their ability to evade normal accountability processes is just an early herald. The robots are just smart enough to cause you trouble, but too dumb to take your feelings into account, and just economically privileged enough to withstand your complaints.Ezranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-30024205688215553222021-03-09T15:37:36.404-08:002021-03-09T15:37:36.404-08:00Just read this at https://phys.org/... More inform...Just read this at https://phys.org/... More information: Irene Ronga et al. Spatial tuning of electrophysiological responses to multisensory stimuli reveals a primitive coding of the body boundaries in newborns, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2021). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2024548118<br /><br />My take, this work suggest consciousness and presence could be inherited and evolutionary???<br />...off to comparing electrophysiological with electroneurological with???Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33510532797646519662021-03-08T12:01:23.193-08:002021-03-08T12:01:23.193-08:00Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! Just a ...Thanks for the continuing comments, folks! Just a couple thoughts on SelfAware's comments:<br /><br />"That said, I tend to doubt we'll get there by accident, by building every more clever fakes. AI researchers refer to the "barrier of meaning", the idea that these systems lack a world model. Our best autonomous robots still can't navigate the world as well as the simplest vertebrates. Until a chatbot has some kind of primal world model that it can map concepts back to, in other words, real understanding, I doubt one will pass an extended Turing type test."<br /><br />A thought of this sort is why I put my chatbot in an autonomous vehicle in a mappable and predictable real-world environment (a mall) with visual object recognition. It will have a kind of world model -- of the mall world. It wouldn't pass a rigorous Turing test, but there's a question of whether that would really be necessary.<br /><br />On goals: Any such world-embedded bot will need goal hierarchies, prioritizations that weigh whether a "good" outcome on goal Y is worth the price of a "bad" outcome of X. It will need to update these in real time and if things are going badly with a top-priority goal, it will need to redirect resources and "attention" to that goal, maybe taking strong action, pleading for help, etc. I'm not saying this is enough for consciousness, but it has some important functional similarities that eventually, with enough sophistication, could precipitate reasonable disagreement.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9851585619664755892021-03-06T14:32:06.636-08:002021-03-06T14:32:06.636-08:00Its always at least a-2-way street: A person loses...Its always at least a-2-way street: A person loses a leg but gets an artificial leg...<br />...consciousness of an artificial leg, consciousness of (the) artificial leg as AI...<br /><br />That the artificial leg is consciousness and some would say even conscious...<br />...as for physical AI the same would be for emotional AI and mental AI...<br /><br />And the same for the Object of Moral...Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-41052230882910508102021-03-06T11:14:30.488-08:002021-03-06T11:14:30.488-08:00It seems pretty clear that more people will believ...It seems pretty clear that more people will believe that robots need rights as these machines become more advanced. But while theism evolved into us, and remains strong in the age of science given indoctrination and hope for Heaven, the robot situation lacks such attributes. Yes we should tend to let our children play with appropriate models, and be just as concerned when they’re nasty to them as we are today with dolls. But sufficiently educated people should tend to teach their children that there’s something fundamentally different between things which are sentient versus not. <br /><br />The aged and mentally slow who are in need of companionship should benefit from these robots a great deal, and differently than they’re able to benefit today from pets. I imagine that many will consider these machines as companions, spouses, and yes lovers. For “normal” people however it should become relatively stigmatic to treat non-sentient machines as if they were sentient. <br /><br />So what happens if/when we build functional sentient machines? That’s where I think legal rights will tend to be granted, and rightly so. In general is should be both legal and encouraged to build machines which can only feel good. If we do get this far someday however, the converse should tend to be restricted.Philosopher Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126076811765843302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-91851274129859448262021-03-06T08:26:16.046-08:002021-03-06T08:26:16.046-08:00Ultimately it does seem to come down to an extende...Ultimately it does seem to come down to an extended Turing test, in a broad sense. At some point, a machine will successfully convince us that it's a fellow being. Whether it's crossed a real threshold may not be any kind of fact of the matter.<br /><br />That said, I tend to doubt we'll get there by accident, by building every more clever fakes. AI researchers refer to the "barrier of meaning", the idea that these systems lack a world model. Our best autonomous robots still can't navigate the world as well as the simplest vertebrates. Until a chatbot has some kind of primal world model that it can map concepts back to, in other words, real understanding, I doubt one will pass an extended Turing type test.<br /><br />The question is whether it will make sense to give common robots feelings in the way we understand them. It seems possible to give them values and goals they can pursue flexibly, without necessarily architecting them the way evolution did. I don't doubt someone will do it, but I do wonder if it will ever make sense on a commercial scale. Do we really want a mine sweeper or Mars rover that can suffer?SelfAwarePatternshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856665627652130336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-80419201320000765672021-03-05T20:56:20.174-08:002021-03-05T20:56:20.174-08:00Personally I believe that robots deserve legal rig...Personally I believe that robots deserve legal rights and protections, and the development of these sorts of frameworks should begin as early as possible, so when we <i>do </i>get to a stage where people are interacting with GPT-10, GPT-15, or GPT-20, we're not floundering in a moral vacuum. Well, moreso than usual.<br /><br />David Levy once said, <i>'If a robot appears in every way to possess consciousness, then in my opinion, we should accept that it does'. </i>And if we're treating artificial humans with respect, then it should follow that we'll treat flesh-and-blood humans with it as well.Davecathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15890760806211337706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-31213219238178906212021-03-05T10:36:15.218-08:002021-03-05T10:36:15.218-08:00An unintuitive conclusion! But it's interesti...An unintuitive conclusion! But it's interesting to consider whether, and if so under what conditions, we might create entities with a greater moral status than we ourselves have.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-65459506099830483392021-03-05T09:58:58.714-08:002021-03-05T09:58:58.714-08:00Maybe it should have more rights than ordinary peo...Maybe it should have more rights than ordinary people, because it's so damned smartHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com