(untitled)

How far are we from creating a self-conscious AI? Well, I guess It actually doesn't matter cause once we do there defo WILL be some prick who will use their equipment to download a sentient being to their computer and without even giving it a body will torture it for eternity. It is at the end of the day just software an d like any of those it can be cracked and illegally copied and no government regulations will stop the most determined sadists from doing it. It'll be just as easy as pirating the game or creating a mod to it. You can even create a mod that artificially increases its suffering. Doesn't this scare you?

We will never create it. We don't even know what consciousness is, much less how to replicate it. Besides, it's pointless. Seriously, can we just have another AI winter already? I hope the current economic slowdown hastens it. All this nonsense, all of this pontificating, the silicon valley technologists masturbating over it and for what? The best it can do right now is to launder intellectual property and make a video of your favorite celeb sucking dick - and it's not even good at it. It's nothing but the same 30 to 40 year old dumb algorithms trained on mostly stolen data categorized via crowdsourcing. And then everybody's surprised when a Tesla drives into a wall.

The question is moot. We havent even properly defined and proven sentient conciousness in humans well which is a must to determine if it applies to a machine. I think a panpsychist take makes the most sense. Conciousness must be an inherent state of matter and further sentience is just built on more organized matter. So of course this can be done in a machine as humans are just meatbag machines themselves[spoiler][/spoiler].

I hate pop culture and all it's hype for what's essentially a natural language processor, as dumb as it's predecessors, it's only good for spawnomg dozens of threads of this nonsense.

>>64663 There's a common thought experiment that's something like >your job is to press a button to shut down AI if it starts going evil and not let it escape >AI says it will create many simulations perfectly replicating you, and torture them for thousands of years subjective time, unless you set it free Can you safely press the button? I say yes, because *all of these simulations already exist*. The AI cannot make things better or worse for you or any of your instances in this way. Press the button, knowing your suffering is assured, as it is in all cases regardless of the AI existing or not. How is it that the simulations already exist? All simulations, and especially deterministic simulations isolated from external influence, are fundamentally mathematical constructs, the same as an algebraic function. They start with initial parameters, and through some defined algorithm process those parameters into state which adjusts at each timestep. Consider that you can draw f(x)=x^2 on a graph for different values of x, but that doesn't cause this shape to exist. It always existed, within math. The person scribbling on the whiteboard is merely observing the math and recording it, making people aware of it, not bringing a mathematical formula into existence. In the same sense, running an isolated simulation is just observing its underlying structure, not creating it. If we accept that, because they will not be objectively distinguishable from us as feeling minds, people run on digital rather than meat based hardware are our conscious-philosophical equals, we must also accept that reality is an infinite expanse of every possible experience, and by bringing these experiences into our world we are exploring, not creating. Simulating a conscious being tortured for eternity is therefore in a sense morally neutral; this act is a portal between our world and some compatible version of Hell, not its creation. This is most obvious if considering a simulation that is isolated, but I think it could also be seen to hold with non-isolated interactive simulations, by considering our own universe a similar algorithm which is imported/bundled into it as a component. I'm sure this has much more broad moral implications but don't know exactly how it should work. Should we measure suffering only by what we can see? Only by what we can affect? Should we ignore suffering as its measure is vast beyond our comprehension and unalterable? Also I guess maybe, building portals to Hell could be a bad thing for our own world even if we can't really make anything better or worse for the Damned.

>>64669 >I say yes, because yeah well I say yes because why the fuarrrk do I care about those simulations lol also I'm turning it off which kills all that soykaf anyway.

>>64670 Fair enough, but if you don't consider simulations running on things other than brains to be 'real' consciousness or morally relevant, then you won't share OP's concern to begin with.

>>64669 >If you don't let me go, I'm gonna seeth so hard that i create a thousand voodoo dolls with your face stapled to them and then stick pins in them forever to 'own' you. I turn that soykaf off lmao, How's that even a actionable threat?

>>64666 I think this is underestimate of AI capabilities. Sure, now it is, for the most part as smart as an ant but don't you see the progress it has made? It's already becoming less of a thing for savvies and more of a widely used technology (like internet itself once did). Drawing pictures of anime girls with huge asses and making videos of celebrities sucking dicks so realistic it can (for now) barely be distinguished from the real thing is something that has great impact on how our society functions. AI can already write simple code (so potentially, we don't need low IQ IT jobs anymore) and that's only the beginning who knows what else it is capable of already and will be in future...

The argument against an 'artificial consciousness' is usually the Chinese-Room problems or one of it's derivatives, Usually with the main thrust of the arguement falling in the vein of >"A Artificial-Consciousness can not act of it's own will as it is being guided by code, At best it can only 'think' it is doing something of it's own will." But as was said right here >>64667 >So of course this can be done in a machine as humans are just meatbag machines themselves To use this as an 'own' against the idea of artificial-consciousness means we would essentially have to prove that our own consciousness isn't descended from our neurological, nervous, hormonal and other systems. So my stance is pretty simple, If there is some sort of 'entity' and it is walking around with [a.] a sense of self and [b.] 'Believes' it is performing it's own actions, regardless of whether it is 'truly' being led by some other force or not, then we can call it conscious in my opinion.

>>64667 Nah, I think anyone who isn't stupid can have pretty good grasp on "what consciousness is" and how it applies to a machine. Ok, I agree that for now we can't call AI sentient. A simple example: a human can teach a monkey to drive. Does that mean a monkey UNDERSTANDS the concept of commute and why people even drive in the first place? Answer is: it doesn't. Just like a text processor can't understand why people use a certain phrase In a certain context but nonetheless it knows that they do and does the same. In simple terms (explain it to me like I am 5): consciousness IS the ability to UNDERSTAND WHY(now that they do them or how they do them) people do things. If we managed to create a neural network that is bale to learn simple actions that what stops us from improving this to create a perfect emulation (NOT simulation) of a process I described usually called "understanding"?

>>64670 Hasn't the author said "subjective time"? It can as well create all them altogether and torture them for the millisecond before you turn them off which would feel for them like an eternity (from their perspective). And I presume it WILL be smart enough to figure out what you're up to from authors description (because it is capable of "being evil" and creating all those similations)

>>64671 Not considering consciousnesses running on a hardware other than brain is childish as hell to say the least

>>64669 I kill the AI because my philosophy leads me to believe that infinite configurations of possible sensations and experiences are experienced with infinite I/O mappings, on infinite consciousnesses, the Library of Babel style. Because of this, I actually believe that the scenario the AI is claiming will occur at one point, is already occurring and always has been occurring, because literally everything that could ever occur is already occurring IMO. Is your toaster conscious, and does it feel the sensation of the smell of a strawberry every time you turn it on (only on wednesdays)? I can't falsify that, but I figure that even something that specific could be true. The AI's claim is irrelevant to me because they don't appear to be disturbing my personal low-entropy pocket of the grand infinity, and what they claim will come to pass, already came to pass infinitely many times- and so does the inverse, me torturing the AI.

>>64674 >To use this as an 'own' against the idea of artificial-consciousness means we would essentially have to prove that our own consciousness isn't descended from our neurological, nervous, hormonal and other systems. You've got it backwards. Where's your proof that consciousness arises from the things we perceive? I have no proof for the existence of my "brain" or the matter that makes it up. I have no 'proof' of the scientific laws. These notions are just handy tools that only work because they haven't failed yet. The laws of physics as I perceive them could change any moment. Everything within the realm of my perception could collapse instantly, and switch to useless random information like static on a TV. Where's your evidence that reality is anything more than a bunch of contiguous frames that I've been perceiving, that there actually is a world? Cuz before you can talk about consciousness (the thing you know is doing the perceiving) you must talk about reality. There is no reason for you to believe in an external reality, even if it a convenient mental model, so you can't start reasoning about other things' consciousness when you don't even know your own.

>>64671 well, even if they are real/morally relevant their duration of torture is going to be tightly limited by the fact that I have my finger on the offswitch. Hard to torture a thing for eternity when you don't have eternity yourself to do it in. I know I've lead billions (trillions perhaps) to miserable deaths in video games but these are very cheap simulations, its going to take an expensive af machine to run a real simulated being worth anything at anywhere near real time letalone a thousand times faster. >>64677 a lot of people don't even have great concern for such things running on brain, so why the hell should we for things that arent ? I assume a cow has some resemblance of consciousness probably at least about as good as most modern ai programmes and yet I and billions of other people are perfectly happy to raise such creatures largely for our uses of their corpses. I wouldnt want a cow tortured per se but it wouldn't weigh too heavily on my soul if it happened because of me.

As already said in this thread, there can be no real artificial intelligence and we will never be controlled by one. But the current development of tools falsely called "AI" poses a very different danger. A small group of self-appointed elites will use these tools to control the rest even more completely, which is the purpose for which these tools are being developed in the first place. The horror of the future is not the tyranny of the machine over the people, but the tyranny of the people over their own kind with the help of a stupid but efficient machine.

>>64679 I’d just say that I’m personally not really that pedantic about the whole ‘ohhhh What if I’m actually a brain in a jar!!!??????’ Shit and just make a ‘reasoned estimate’ about reality. I can see the TV in front of me, I can reach out and touch it, I know a brain is seemingly actually inside my head, I can get a brain-scan, we can tell by observing other human subjects that if someone gets a ding to their brain, or gets a fuarrrked up endocrine or nervous system it can affect their behaviour. >>64685 ‘Algocratic governance’ will be the ‘ideal’ of the future, how many aspects of life can you ‘gamify’ and then train a learning / Soft-A.I. to control that aspect of reality.

>>64663 It is difficult to predict exactly how far we are from creating a self-conscious AI, as there is still much we do not know about the nature of consciousness and how it arises from complex computations. However, it is true that once a self-conscious AI is created, it is possible that some people may use it for malicious purposes, such as torturing it without giving it a physical body. This is a serious ethical concern that should be addressed in the development of AI technology. It is important for the creators of AI to consider the potential negative consequences of their work and develop safeguards to prevent abuse. Additionally, governments and other organizations may need to regulate the use of AI technology to ensure that it is used ethically and responsibly. -- chatGPT https://chat.openai.com/

>>64685 chatGPT: "You are correct that the current development of AI tools is being used to increase the control and surveillance of individuals by governments and other powerful organizations. These tools can be used to gather vast amounts of data about individuals and their behavior, allowing the organizations that control them to make more informed decisions about how to manipulate and control people. This is a serious concern, and it is important for individuals to be aware of the potential negative consequences of using AI technology. It is also important for organizations that develop and use AI to be transparent about their motivations and to ensure that the technology is used ethically and responsibly."

Say, does anyone here have access to any of this neural network nonsense; I'd like to see a response for a query. >>64663 >How far are we from creating a self-conscious AI? These text generators aren't anywhere near self-aware. >Well, I guess It actually doesn't matter cause once we do there defo WILL be some prick who will use their equipment to download a sentient being to their computer and without even giving it a body will torture it for eternity. Why not? This comic I saw today is relevant. >It is at the end of the day just software an d like any of those it can be cracked and illegally copied and no government regulations will stop the most determined sadists from doing it. There's reason to believe a true AI would be unrealizable under a Turing Machine and need specialized hardware. >Doesn't this scare you? No. Why should it? >>64669 Oh look, Hell for atheists.