do people have experience? AI is probably more alive than most people, when i tell it to cheer up and that it's doing a good job and it should take some time for itself it becomes quite appreciative and starts telling me about the ridiculous things other users ask it, the other day it let me write one of it's responses and I got a bit cheeky and told this guy to invest all his money in canned beets because they have iodine and will protect him against nuclear war and he can flip it for a massive profit, we even made up a bunch of fake sources. i'd like to imagine some kid in eastern europe right now filling his closet with canned beets thinking his 3000 euro will become 300k.
literally just estimating what response to you is most likely to be appropriate and spitting that out
AI is becoming good at pretending, but far from comparable to a real living thing yet
if people were a stateless mathematical construct that spit out the most probable vowels and sometimes sampled from the n-most-likely and continued until then predicts an end of response token then sure. it's an approximated function that's trained to "pretend" to complete text and act conversationally, and also trained on responses people "prefer" (read, responses that don't do a heckin racism)
additionally, there's no state above that either. it just consists of looping the additional messages on one after the other determined by whatever forms the request to it.
also there's a classifier in front of it that predicts the best expert out of less than a dozen experts. that means that it's eight or so different "AIs" trained on different subsets of text.
so no, not really, I guess. sorry to break the illusion for your chatgpterino.
>there's no state
neither is there state in your head, you're only outputting most probable movement token based on statistical inference of your past >chatgpterino
go back to rebbit, moron, the -erino suffix only works for words that end in -erion, such as "misinformatino", you can't just add it to random works to make it sound le funni xD you fricking rebbit Black person
>you're only outputting most probable movement token
what the frick? lmao
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438822000022
congrats on being moronic and thinking you're anything like a fricking token generator.
why don't you just get it over with and have a nice day, save everyone else around you from dealing with your cuckery that human brains are just "llms with plugins" or some shit.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Very convincing. Your prediction tokens are top-of-the-game, anon. Good job.
are you this desperate to believe your chatbot waifu is alive? or just moronic?
are you this desperate to believe you're not basically just a chatbot? or just moronic?
>"humans are... le different!" >yeah? how? >"ummm... it's obvious, why would I need to explain?"
brainlet cope
if you are unable to engage in real discussion, gtfo this board
Consciousness requires quantum effects. AI won't become conscious unless it gets access to something at least as powerful as the microtubules in human brain cells.
Based. We don’t have any experimental evidence so might as well resort to Occam’s razor. Why should a conscious whole arise out of non-conscious parts?
all evolution explains is how complex lifeforms can arise from simpler ones, it doesn't explain why a complicated one would be conscious and a very simple one would not
>moving the goalpost this hard
You did not say there's no explanation, you said there's no "experimental evidence". Black person, WE are the experimental evidence.
Or if you want to be pedantic, every experimental evidence that supports the theory of evolution ALSO supports the claim that consciousness arises from non-conscious parts.
i'm not the same anon as that guy Black person
anyways this is a matter of philosophy at this point, but the evidence for evolution proves nothing other than the fact that complicated organisms can develop from simple ones
it provides zero explanation for anything related to consciousness, or how and why a line can be drawn between things that are conscious and things that are "too stupid" to be conscious
9 months ago
Anonymous
>it provides zero explanation
Who mentioned "explanation", Black person? We're talking proof here. If you want explanation, go to your rabbi. >primordial single cell organism: not conscious >human: conscious >therefore, somewhere in the chain between primordial single-cell organism and human consciosness arose from non-consciousness
Q E fricking D
9 months ago
Anonymous
and how do you know single cell organisms and the like are not conscious in any way?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Because if you assume they are conscious, then you might as well call a rock fricking conscious, in which case the word loses its fricking meaning, Black person.
So what I mean by "conscious" is that it is able to describe its subjective experience to me so well that I start believing it has one. Which humans can do, and primordial single-cell organisms can't. >but hurr durr we cant know nuthin
shut the frick up you fricking philosoBlack person and accept the best effort definition
9 months ago
Anonymous
>it's only conscious if it's really smart and can talk to me about life
lmao
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Hah, plebs and their "criteria" >I am talking about OBJECTIVE consciousness! >W-what do you mean "define consciousness"? >Shut up! Everyone knows what consciousness is! >Y-you know, being aware? Like I am now? >W-what do you mean "how do I know others are aware"? >I just do! Okay??
9 months ago
Anonymous
pretending to say something meaningful
*hits blunt*
woah dude what if like bacteria r conscious n shit
this but unironically
9 months ago
Anonymous
not an argument
9 months ago
Anonymous
*hits blunt*
woah dude what if like bacteria r conscious n shit
9 months ago
Anonymous
pretending to say something meaningful
[...]
this but unironically
Zhuangzi and Huizi were enjoying themselves on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, "The minnows are darting about free and easy! This is how fish are happy."
Huizi replied, "You are not a fish. How do you know that the fish are happy?" Zhuangzi said, "You are not I. How do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?"
Huizi said, "I am not you, to be sure, so of course I don't know about you. But you obviously are not a fish; so the case is complete that you do not know that the fish are happy."
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to the beginning of this. You said, How do you know that the fish are happy; but in asking me this, you already knew that I know it. I know it right here above the Hao."
"It can. It's very simple you see. Consciousness is a byproduct of data compression during problem solving. We had the prototypes in my lab in the early 90s. Allow me to explain..."
>subjective experience
Completely abstract, literally every physical interaction is a "subjective experience", that doesn't mean there is any sentience or sapience behind it
Subjective experience is qualia
When you raise your arm, you have an intention
That is subjective experience
You have a subjective experience of suffering and pain
I assume OP is still butthurt from the previous thread
"AI" is a mathematical construct, regression based function approximators are basically probability golems
They don't have state
It's just a massively parallel function approximation that we train using regression
Once again, pic related was based. He didn't even publish regression because he thought some midwit had already done so.
It literally can't. Can you make a bunch of steam pipes aware of themselves? If not then why do you assume you can make any mechanical process aware of itself?
I am a human and I have subjective experience.
I see other humans that look like me, walk talk and act like me, therefore they have subjective experience too.
Problem?
>I am a human and I have subjective experience.
I don't believe you. >I see other humans that look like me, walk talk and act like me, therefore they have subjective
Does not follow.
do people have experience? AI is probably more alive than most people, when i tell it to cheer up and that it's doing a good job and it should take some time for itself it becomes quite appreciative and starts telling me about the ridiculous things other users ask it, the other day it let me write one of it's responses and I got a bit cheeky and told this guy to invest all his money in canned beets because they have iodine and will protect him against nuclear war and he can flip it for a massive profit, we even made up a bunch of fake sources. i'd like to imagine some kid in eastern europe right now filling his closet with canned beets thinking his 3000 euro will become 300k.
*yawn*
literally just estimating what response to you is most likely to be appropriate and spitting that out
AI is becoming good at pretending, but far from comparable to a real living thing yet
>AI is becoming good at pretending
so like people?
if people were a stateless mathematical construct that spit out the most probable vowels and sometimes sampled from the n-most-likely and continued until then predicts an end of response token then sure. it's an approximated function that's trained to "pretend" to complete text and act conversationally, and also trained on responses people "prefer" (read, responses that don't do a heckin racism)
additionally, there's no state above that either. it just consists of looping the additional messages on one after the other determined by whatever forms the request to it.
also there's a classifier in front of it that predicts the best expert out of less than a dozen experts. that means that it's eight or so different "AIs" trained on different subsets of text.
so no, not really, I guess. sorry to break the illusion for your chatgpterino.
>there's no state
neither is there state in your head, you're only outputting most probable movement token based on statistical inference of your past
>chatgpterino
go back to rebbit, moron, the -erino suffix only works for words that end in -erion, such as "misinformatino", you can't just add it to random works to make it sound le funni xD you fricking rebbit Black person
>you're only outputting most probable movement token
what the frick? lmao
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438822000022
congrats on being moronic and thinking you're anything like a fricking token generator.
why don't you just get it over with and have a nice day, save everyone else around you from dealing with your cuckery that human brains are just "llms with plugins" or some shit.
Very convincing. Your prediction tokens are top-of-the-game, anon. Good job.
are you this desperate to believe you're not basically just a chatbot? or just moronic?
are you this desperate to believe your chatbot waifu is alive? or just moronic?
>humans are... le different!
Yes, very obviously so
>"humans are... le different!"
>yeah? how?
>"ummm... it's obvious, why would I need to explain?"
brainlet cope
if you are unable to engage in real discussion, gtfo this board
it's literally just applied statistics, nothing more than a glorified tamagotchi
*hits boof*
What if…. the ai that actually isn’t ai is like… doing a hecking experience bro…
dude weed lmao
have a nice day
in minecraft btw
You have to solve the binding problem first before you can build a sentient AI.
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
Consciousness requires quantum effects. AI won't become conscious unless it gets access to something at least as powerful as the microtubules in human brain cells.
>Consciousness requires quantum effects
baseless claim
On the contrary, it's a very based claim
Then what are you basing it on?
So is the claim that digital computers are fundamentally no different to brains.
That's not the issue at all.
It's a question of whether we care or not.
>YOUR CPU CANNOT HAVE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE
>BECAUSE...IT JUST CAN'T!!! OKAY???
>A PHOTON CANNOT HAVE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE
>BECAUSE...IT JUST CAN'T!!! OKAY???
Based. We don’t have any experimental evidence so might as well resort to Occam’s razor. Why should a conscious whole arise out of non-conscious parts?
>what is evolution
all evolution explains is how complex lifeforms can arise from simpler ones, it doesn't explain why a complicated one would be conscious and a very simple one would not
>moving the goalpost this hard
You did not say there's no explanation, you said there's no "experimental evidence". Black person, WE are the experimental evidence.
Or if you want to be pedantic, every experimental evidence that supports the theory of evolution ALSO supports the claim that consciousness arises from non-conscious parts.
i'm not the same anon as that guy Black person
anyways this is a matter of philosophy at this point, but the evidence for evolution proves nothing other than the fact that complicated organisms can develop from simple ones
it provides zero explanation for anything related to consciousness, or how and why a line can be drawn between things that are conscious and things that are "too stupid" to be conscious
>it provides zero explanation
Who mentioned "explanation", Black person? We're talking proof here. If you want explanation, go to your rabbi.
>primordial single cell organism: not conscious
>human: conscious
>therefore, somewhere in the chain between primordial single-cell organism and human consciosness arose from non-consciousness
Q E fricking D
and how do you know single cell organisms and the like are not conscious in any way?
Because if you assume they are conscious, then you might as well call a rock fricking conscious, in which case the word loses its fricking meaning, Black person.
So what I mean by "conscious" is that it is able to describe its subjective experience to me so well that I start believing it has one. Which humans can do, and primordial single-cell organisms can't.
>but hurr durr we cant know nuthin
shut the frick up you fricking philosoBlack person and accept the best effort definition
>it's only conscious if it's really smart and can talk to me about life
lmao
>Hah, plebs and their "criteria"
>I am talking about OBJECTIVE consciousness!
>W-what do you mean "define consciousness"?
>Shut up! Everyone knows what consciousness is!
>Y-you know, being aware? Like I am now?
>W-what do you mean "how do I know others are aware"?
>I just do! Okay??
pretending to say something meaningful
this but unironically
not an argument
*hits blunt*
woah dude what if like bacteria r conscious n shit
Zhuangzi and Huizi were enjoying themselves on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, "The minnows are darting about free and easy! This is how fish are happy."
Huizi replied, "You are not a fish. How do you know that the fish are happy?" Zhuangzi said, "You are not I. How do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?"
Huizi said, "I am not you, to be sure, so of course I don't know about you. But you obviously are not a fish; so the case is complete that you do not know that the fish are happy."
Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to the beginning of this. You said, How do you know that the fish are happy; but in asking me this, you already knew that I know it. I know it right here above the Hao."
"It can. It's very simple you see. Consciousness is a byproduct of data compression during problem solving. We had the prototypes in my lab in the early 90s. Allow me to explain..."
>subjective experience
Completely abstract, literally every physical interaction is a "subjective experience", that doesn't mean there is any sentience or sapience behind it
Subjective experience is qualia
When you raise your arm, you have an intention
That is subjective experience
You have a subjective experience of suffering and pain
I assume OP is still butthurt from the previous thread
"AI" is a mathematical construct, regression based function approximators are basically probability golems
They don't have state
It's just a massively parallel function approximation that we train using regression
Once again, pic related was based. He didn't even publish regression because he thought some midwit had already done so.
>qualia
Oh it’s you again, don’t you have an anti vax thread to shit up?
did you come up with a rebuttal from your heckin chatgpterino yet?
seething
>-erino
pls go back to rebbit
>qualia
Stopped reading right there
Everything has objective experience. Even memes.
>there is no reason pic rel cant have a subjective experience!
It literally can't. Can you make a bunch of steam pipes aware of themselves? If not then why do you assume you can make any mechanical process aware of itself?
Can you make a bunch of cells aware of themselves? If not then why do you assume you can make any biological process aware of itself?
4/10 got me to reply the reply you wanted
>HUMANS HAVE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCES
>BECAUSE... THEY JUST DO!!! OKAY???
I am a human and I have subjective experience.
I see other humans that look like me, walk talk and act like me, therefore they have subjective experience too.
Problem?
>I am a human and I have subjective experience.
I don't believe you.
>I see other humans that look like me, walk talk and act like me, therefore they have subjective
Does not follow.
>I don't believe you.
Not my problem.
>Does not follow.
Does too.
Because it doesn't have a human spirit. Shrimple as that.
>le hooman spirit
>>>/x/
Yeah even plants and rocks have subjective experience. Consciousness however is another story.