ChronoPsyche t1_is4xp9l wrote on October 13, 2022 at 10:10 AM

Reply to comment by subdep in Computer-connected human neurons learn to play video games by galactic-arachnid

What? That makes no sense. Humans using smart phone with social media is not intelligence at all or any discrete phenomena being studied in a lab. Nobody is claiming that humans using smartphones with social media is artificial or natural. That's not even a useful descriptor for such a general set of activities as such.

The data being processed is also not manipulated by scientists conducting experiments. What scientist is conducting an experiment on the set of all humans using smartphones? You totally are confused here.

My logic would say that the smart phones themselves are artifical, because they were developed by humans. Likewise, if intelligence arises from an artificial process, then that intelligence is artifical. For something to be natural, it has to have arisen from a natural process.

subdep t1_is5ijun wrote on October 13, 2022 at 1:32 PM

You’re lack of awareness perplexes me.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/02/facebook-apologises-psychological-experiments-on-users

https://acawiki.org/The_Law_and_Ethics_of_Experiments_on_Social_Media_Users

ChronoPsyche t1_is5jnfk wrote on October 13, 2022 at 1:40 PM

Your extrapolating erroneously. My statement was specifically about creating intelligence. Not every experiment is about creating something and the question of artifical vs natural is not something that applies to the situation you are referring to.

Also, social media itself is not an experiment. The existence of an experiment within the context of social media does not mean that the entire social media paradigm is some experiment in a lab.

Instead of doing "whataboutism" why don't you explain why my logic is faulty. If a process is created though artifical means, how is it not artificial? Artifical refers to the intelligence, not the substrate.