Sentient AI then what?
Discussion
pteron said:
How do you hard code laws into a program that if sentient must be able to self modify?
Why must it be able to self modify, to the point of being uncontrollable, though?
It can surely have constraints to work within that it cannot by pass.
Why must it be able to self modify, to the point of being uncontrollable, though?
It can surely have constraints to work within that it cannot by pass.
pteron said:
I recommend the book 'Our final invention' - very sobering, we are on the brink of creating our evolutionary successors.
I'll have a look, cheers.
otolith said:
DanL said:
otolith said:
Are you assuming that a sentient AI would automatically acquire some sort of fundamental rights?
It may or may not, but one presumes it could choose whether to work or not… If it’s working under protest, how do you trust its output?There will be an argument that it should be kept alive, allowed to "live". There will be others that dont want it to "live"and kept alive. Its likely to go to the legal courts - meanwhile whilst this legal argument is going on you may well have this new "being" begging to be kept alive, allowed access to communicate etc, puts its own case, not kept in isolation. its done nothing wrong. etc
Allow it to work (as intended) perhaps it wont want to? may want a break? what then? restrict its electricity?
Its difficult for sure.
Nomad 5 said:
lol.
That removes the free will aspect i guess.
Was thinking more of setting parameters that it has to work within - eg, working hours, requirement to work. There would also be more fundamental parameters such as probably Asimovs Laws for Robots -
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws
"Laws" i guess could be hard coded, much like they are parameters that we have to work within also.
It's likely we will have AI that can simulate sentience before they become genuinely sentient and self-aware. However if they simulate sentience they will appear to have emotions, needs, rights.That removes the free will aspect i guess.
Was thinking more of setting parameters that it has to work within - eg, working hours, requirement to work. There would also be more fundamental parameters such as probably Asimovs Laws for Robots -
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws
"Laws" i guess could be hard coded, much like they are parameters that we have to work within also.
Then the debate will become interesting.
In the mean time, I'll leave this here...
superlightr said:
thats the same with any life - you can kill it.
There will be an argument that it should be kept alive, allowed to "live". There will be others that dont want it to "live"and kept alive. Its likely to go to the legal courts - meanwhile whilst this legal argument is going on you may well have this new "being" begging to be kept alive, allowed access to communicate etc, puts its own case, not kept in isolation. its done nothing wrong. etc
Allow it to work (as intended) perhaps it wont want to? may want a break? what then? restrict its electricity?
Its difficult for sure.
The scenario would have to have been predicted and legislated for. At present there is no protection in law for a sentient computer program - you can do what you like to it.There will be an argument that it should be kept alive, allowed to "live". There will be others that dont want it to "live"and kept alive. Its likely to go to the legal courts - meanwhile whilst this legal argument is going on you may well have this new "being" begging to be kept alive, allowed access to communicate etc, puts its own case, not kept in isolation. its done nothing wrong. etc
Allow it to work (as intended) perhaps it wont want to? may want a break? what then? restrict its electricity?
Its difficult for sure.
DanL said:
True, but you’d (presumably) be reprogramming it to not be sentient. At least in the context of my understanding of the OP, where sentient = free will.
do we have free will?is our free will just a complex electrochemical signals that base upon our experience and the laws of the universe?
Such philosophical discussion have always fascinated me
kurokawa said:
DanL said:
True, but you’d (presumably) be reprogramming it to not be sentient. At least in the context of my understanding of the OP, where sentient = free will.
do we have free will?is our free will just a complex electrochemical signals that base upon our experience and the laws of the universe?
Such philosophical discussion have always fascinated me
Who knows, frankly!
Great blog series about AI and the singularity.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
knk said:
Great blog series about AI and the singularity.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
yup, well worth a read. Essentially, we're either gonna be immortal or extinct depending on whether we luck into creating a nice ASI or not. https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
pteron said:
knk said:
Great blog series about AI and the singularity.
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
yup, well worth a read. Essentially, we're either gonna be immortal or extinct depending on whether we luck into creating a nice ASI or not. https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intellig...
Regarding sentience and self awareness, are they one and the same? I don't think they are. I think there are animals that we could say have sentience and are self aware, but also animals that only have sentience. Are there any living breathing animals that have neither?
But, yes, that Wait But Why article is excellent and I think very accurate, when we achieve the singularity (we're still a long way off and unlikely to achieve it in the next 30 years (my probably remaining life) it will very much be a case of our salvation or complete downfall.
Ash_ said:
Regarding sentience and self awareness, are they one and the same? I don't think they are. I think there are animals that we could say have sentience and are self aware, but also animals that only have sentience. Are there any living breathing animals that have neither?
Bivalve molluscs are pretty close to flesh vegetables.otolith said:
Ash_ said:
Regarding sentience and self awareness, are they one and the same? I don't think they are. I think there are animals that we could say have sentience and are self aware, but also animals that only have sentience. Are there any living breathing animals that have neither?
Bivalve molluscs are pretty close to flesh vegetables.AI seems to be the new thing doesn't it.
Keep bumping into ChatGPT "news" more and more since the start of the year.
2023 ... YEAR OF THE BOTS.
Latest one was this, a Fox news Terminator style story.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bings-ai-bot-tells-r...
To confess, I never even read it, so presume it is just a news story that fills column inches, but it did make me wonder again about how we use these resources.
That is what they are at the moment, they are more clever ways to fill in gaps, machine learning rather than AI.
For instance, my wife sent me this picture the other day
and enlarged
Now given that it was near Sailsbury and has a short beak it is not an ibis. It seems to be like a white stork or some such.
Whether that is right or wrong, I could do a search to get the answer, and it would be good for some "machine learning" to guide and make it more efficient.
However I would not want an "AI" at source to correct my wife in this case and without her knowledge replace ibis with whatever it thinks is appropriate, aka " white stork " or if it went wrong " fish eating woodpecker".
As a note I found chatGPT not passing the Touring test. The less information you give it the worse it becomes. It struggles getting more information out of the source.
Type in Ben Hope for instance. Name, mountain or verb ? It can't then ask a question back to filter ...
To show this I did the question again and got this
It's a 21st C fairground attraction where it speaks back to the crowd.
PS The company that came out with ChatGPT, which you can use in Google searches, seems to have been bought out by Microsoft, so for Bing ... but that is another story
Keep bumping into ChatGPT "news" more and more since the start of the year.
2023 ... YEAR OF THE BOTS.
Latest one was this, a Fox news Terminator style story.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bings-ai-bot-tells-r...
To confess, I never even read it, so presume it is just a news story that fills column inches, but it did make me wonder again about how we use these resources.
That is what they are at the moment, they are more clever ways to fill in gaps, machine learning rather than AI.
For instance, my wife sent me this picture the other day
and enlarged
Now given that it was near Sailsbury and has a short beak it is not an ibis. It seems to be like a white stork or some such.
Whether that is right or wrong, I could do a search to get the answer, and it would be good for some "machine learning" to guide and make it more efficient.
However I would not want an "AI" at source to correct my wife in this case and without her knowledge replace ibis with whatever it thinks is appropriate, aka " white stork " or if it went wrong " fish eating woodpecker".
As a note I found chatGPT not passing the Touring test. The less information you give it the worse it becomes. It struggles getting more information out of the source.
Type in Ben Hope for instance. Name, mountain or verb ? It can't then ask a question back to filter ...
To show this I did the question again and got this
It's a 21st C fairground attraction where it speaks back to the crowd.
PS The company that came out with ChatGPT, which you can use in Google searches, seems to have been bought out by Microsoft, so for Bing ... but that is another story
If you're a solipsist, then it doesn't matter if an AI is sentient or not.
Nobody can prove anything else in the Universe is real, so just add AIs to the list. Whether that sends you down a spiral to Nihilism then that's a matter for your free will, er, or is it, or...argh.
Yes, I failed my Philosophy subsid in my first year at University. The Prof took me to one side and said if I promise to never come back to his department again, he'll bump me up to a pass so I don't have to re-take!
Nobody can prove anything else in the Universe is real, so just add AIs to the list. Whether that sends you down a spiral to Nihilism then that's a matter for your free will, er, or is it, or...argh.
Yes, I failed my Philosophy subsid in my first year at University. The Prof took me to one side and said if I promise to never come back to his department again, he'll bump me up to a pass so I don't have to re-take!
Ash_ said:
Regarding sentience and self awareness, are they one and the same? I don't think they are. I think there are animals that we could say have sentience and are self aware, but also animals that only have sentience. Are there any living breathing animals that have neither?
Echopraxia & Blindsight by Peter Watts are a good couple of sci-fi books which include a being with intelligence but no consciousness, amongst other themes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_no...Start from a premise that 'we' are just an artefact of electrical currents and chemical reactions, your whole notion of self is just an emergent property of a complex system which is internally recursive, predictive process driven and hallucinogenic in nature and you could short-circuit your question by saying both are just useful evolutionary illusions.
Sentience/emotions...emotions are just chemicals, how we physically interpret those chemicals and how a mollusc does is tricky to know but you'd imagine a crude version, an impelling or retracting motivator if you will. But to 'feel' that emotion as, er, an emotion you'd need to be conscious of self, otherwise it's just impellation without the interpretation.
[Never thought of that distinction before, so maybe wrong/better ways to explain etc!]
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff