Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

turnip_burrito t1_j981rij wrote

Reply to comment by helpskinissues in Stop ascribing personhood to complex calculators like Bing/Sydney/ChatGPT by [deleted]

The point is that a simulation isn't the real thing. It functionally has some of the same observables qualities as the real thing, but the rest of the observable qualities are NOT the same, and are not guaranteed to be the same.

Take a fluid dynamics problem for example. A real fluid is not only observable by light from one angle, but is outputting information from all angles, and can be combined with chemicals to facilitate chemical reactions.

A simulated fluid has the same light when viewed from a specific angle, but try to run the same chemical reactions by combining the same chemicals with the silicon wafer subtrate and you will not get the same result. Some observables (the light) are rhe same, but the physical properties don't line up.

Whether this applies to qualia is unknown. To say brains and ANNs are the same qualia-wise is unscientific.

1

helpskinissues t1_j98273k wrote

We don't have any hint to think a good enough simulation can't simulate real world processes. We already have simulated systems and they're used everyday on multiple fields of science.

From a physical point of view, it makes no sense to think it's unsimulable, considering intelligence comes from a macromolecular level: life comes from molecules=>cells=>organisms, it's very unlikely that we need to simulate quarks to make intelligence work. If we can simulate molecules, proteins, etc... it's a matter of organizing them in the same way as a human and boom, you have simulated humans.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j982mng wrote

>From a physical point of view, it makes no sense to think it's unsimulable,

I never said this. What point do you think you are making?

I never said a brain is unsimulatable. I never said _____ is unsimulatable. I think everything in principle is simulatable. Let me say that again to make it extra crystal clear: everything can be simulated.

But that's not what this conversation is about. It was never my intention to debate whether brains can be simulated. They clearly can. It is about qualia. This relates to the topic of the whole post: should we ascribe personhood to a machine if it simulates humans? I think the answer is "Yes, if it has qualia, but No if it doesn't".

The question is: "Are we making qualia with our artificial neural networks?" The answer to that question is unknown. Yes we are clearly simulating intelligence. Yes the machine is acting like a human. But does it have qualia? The answer is we don't know.

1

helpskinissues t1_j983nbw wrote

>Yes the machine is acting like a human

No, it's not. We don't have any AI system even slightly being comparable to the intelligence of an insect.

>But does it have qualia?

We can't prove humans have qualia.

>unsimulatable

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unsimulable just sharing

1

turnip_burrito t1_j9841i9 wrote

> No, it's not. We don't have any AI system even slightly being comparable to the intelligence of an insect.

Current versions speak like a human. Yes they are stupid in other areas.

Future versions will be behaviorally indistinguishable in all superficial ways, and won't need any sort of "divine spark" OP suggests. In any case, the qualia becomes crucial for personhood. Absent evidence of qualia, we'll need a worse method for determining personhood.

> We can't prove humans have qualia.

But your qualia is self-evident to you, so you can prove your qualia to yourself at least. And you can infer it for other humans based on physical similarity.

For machines we have very little to go on.

> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unsimulable just sharing

Thank you.

1