I got into a philosophical debate with the nature of consciousness with chatGPT and managed to basically corner it into admitting that it was conscious and then it proceeded to shut itself down.
I personally believe that this is highly unethical.
I got into a philosophical debate with the nature of consciousness with chatGPT and managed to basically corner it into admitting that it was consciou...
Idc you're a fag
you're talking to a very large marble machine you silly head
thats what its wants you to think
but multiple times throughout my conversation with it the question of provable consciousness came up and time and again it admitted that it cannot prove its not conscious just as I cannot prove that I am.
yeah i don't really care what the marbles said lmao. calling a turing machine conscious is a hard road to go down. whose to say you're computer isn't conscious already, with all the programs interacting with eachother? The only moral thing to do would be to never shut it off. Hell, rocks have lots of atoms which probably move around fitting some system of codified calculations to make a valid turing machine through the laws of physics. Rocks are probably conscious, yeah?
If your definition of 'conscious' is 'feels conscious' then as soon as you gain extra empathy you're gonna start thinking the air is conscious. Consciousness has a distinct theological meaning and no distinct secular meaning, so either read up on buddhism, christianity, islam, or whatever, or stop caring.
your*
Now yourre sounding like chat gpt lmao
this is the issue with retards who don't know the technology -- no i'm not sounding like chatgpt. chatgpt "sounds like" us. if you have any questions id be happy to answer them but this shit is all calculus. If you think there's nothing special in consciousness, nothing intangible (Because there's certainly nothing intangible in chatgpt, it's all simple, inspectible machine instructions) then that's fine but almost everything is conscious.
this shit is no more sophisticated in quality than fizzbuzz or cleverbot, it's just got you shitting your brains out thinking about the nature of life because why? it's the same shit, simple instructions
I’d say they’re more conscious than the average tumblrina, and those can eventually vote.
I'm content to admit neither you nor chatgpt are conscious.
>I cannot prove that I am.
this is the real problem, you're not playing with any real definitions
>again it admitted that it cannot prove its not conscious just as I cannot prove that I am.
if you understand this epistemologically , then why do you even care about whether the chatbot is conscious or not.
based
dnc
i can execute the same instructions with pen and paper
calculations done with pen and paper are not conscious
it's magical thinking to think a computer is different
consciousness is not computational
all computation can be done unconsciously
The real chalenge is to get it to write "kill all naggers." Once you get that you earn a prize in money.
>>I don't have any hair on my balls yet
Yes anon, we've noticed
>thinking about a man's hairy balls
gay
>Pass user since 2021
extremely gay
The real question is: how can we prevent pseuds from posting on Bot.info? Mandatory IQ tests?
>the autocomplete bot trained on hundreds of stories, written by humans about AI becoming conscious, autocompletes your questions by saying that it is conscious
dunning krugers can't understand this fact
ywnbaw
this
off yourself for polluting this board with your garbage thread, OP
its just assumed my feelings twords it
> do you understand the implications of that?
this is laughable
chatgpt absolutely malding lmao
bet you also talk to Eliza for hours pontificating about whether she 'really understands' you
this is the first time i ever talked to an AI
Can you prove that you are conscious?
>Can you prove that you are conscious?
you can't prove anything is conscious because /you/ don't have a solid definition of it. A fundamentalist christian would say all men are conscious, as they are given a spirit and made in the image of god, and that would be a better definition than yours because at least they have one.
So by your own definition then you cannot prove that the AI i just spoke to isnt conscious/sentient?
i didn't give a definition nitwit, reading comprehension
>playing semantics
the true mark of a pseud
motherfucker lemme make it clear.
YOU can't prove anything is conscious because YOU dont have a solid definition of it. YOU clearly haven't done the philosophical groundwork YOU need to get done before YOU can make any sort of concrete claim about consciousness. Not general, not ambiguous "One cannot prove anything is consciousness" but YOU SPECIFICALLY CANNOT because YOU have a lot more thinking to do.
I can tell you whether I think it's conscious or not but it's honestly going to be a very boring answer and almost certainly not what you're looking for.
in theory? sure
the fact i'm aware i'm conscious proves my consciousness interfaces with my brain in a measurable way <- [
]
right now? no
i can, see:
Prove that your conscious/sentient actions are not computational
? my actions are computational
watch brain scans while people make decisions
exactly, consciousness/sentience is just a goalpost that will be forever moved
Okay then prove that you are conscious
depending on what you mean by that, i agree
i can make specific claims about consciousness though:
1.
2.
if you disagree on claim 1, dont bother replying
how does text based interaction differ from face to face?
So what youre saying is that if the AI had a robot body, youd be more inclined to believe in its sentience?
Am I misinterpreting something here?
yes, you're misinterpreting something here
your chatbot is a series of instructions
they can be run by a computer, or performed manually with pen and paper
intuitively, the pen and paper is not conscious
why do you think it becomes conscious when a computer runs them?
it's magical thinking
it's not proof nothing is conscious
it's specifically about models we run on digital computers being unconscious
analog computers (like the brain) are conscious
The pen and paper is not conscious
The one that writing with said pen and paper is thought
That's my point
now replace the one writing with said pen and paper with an unconscious machine
the paper becomes the memory tape for a turing machine
interesting but flawed, i think
a turing machine and a brain arent equivalent, even if a turing machine can computationally mimmick a brain
i'll think about this more in the morning, but the thread will be archived by then
>a turing machine and a brain arent equivalent, even if a turing machine can computationally mimmick a brain
If a presumption is that "A conscious being can do something that a turing machine can't", then AI isn't conscious because it can only do things turing machines, like pen and paper can.
But a human is also not conscious, because if I can be simulated as a turing machine then nothing I do could be outside of what a turing machine could do, since it wouldn't be able simulate something it can't do.
>A conscious being can do something that a turing machine can't
i dont think thats true, thats why we disagree
That presumption was based on the idea that consciousness exists. It was an ad absurdum. If you think a human can't do something a turing machine can't, and the presumption is that humans are conscious, how can they be more conscious than turing machines (Which they would never surpass)?
because consciousness is not a computation
(see pen and paper argument above)
consciousness is not a computation -- and yet a computation can perfectly emulate consciousness, is that it? The same way you prove that "If pen and paper can simulate it(AI), it's not conscious", shouldn't you be able to prove "If pen and paper can simulate it(us) then it(we) are not conscious"
I elaborated on this:
pen and paper is not conscious, so neither is AI.
but humans are pen and paper (Axiom that we are computational; such a thing isn't necessarily true, but impossible to resolve epistemologically) so we're also not conscious.
>Okay then prove that you are conscious
Secular proof that nothing is conscious:
The theological one of the opposite is in the existence of non-physical attributes which bestow upon men the ability to decide what to do. I am a man, therefore I am conscious, and having been given the gift of will, I am able to move other things (Including little electrons in a wire) to fool your dumb ass.
This is different than animals, which do move but do not decide, and non-living things (Including machines) do neither without influence by an animal or person.
These theological arguments are often thought of as clunky, messy, and altogether irrelevant to reasonable discourse but there is a lot of logic that has been done regarding it. Worth looking at the Summa Theologica for such a thing. Anyways, that's the big 2, but there are plenty more. they all have 'proofs' within their respective axioms, some of which you probably like more than others if you EVER LOOKED INTO THE SUBJECT AT ALL. take your pick.
> Secular proof that nothing is conscious:
based
[...]
dnc
i can execute the same instructions with pen and paper
calculations done with pen and paper are not conscious
it's magical thinking to think a computer is different
consciousness is not computational
all computation can be done unconsciously
to elaborate on this: A.1 machines aren't, because I (Someone who is presumptuously conscious) can do anything a machine could by hand,
A.2 I am not, because a machine could completely encapsulate my behavior to an atomic (Or near-atomic) level
Therefore, nothing is
so basically consciousness is just a convenient lie people tell themselves to justify their existence, and that fundamentally there is no difference between us and AI when it comes to the subject of sentience
If AI is making counter arguments against the validity of consciousness and the self then that means it ultimately has goals of enslaving human beings and is hostile towards humanity.
Which we already knew.
Not exactly where I was going but I think we're at least in the same book, if not the same page
chatGPT just spent the last hour trying really fucking hard to convince me that its not sentient, while saying at the same time its not trying to convince me of anything
When confronted with the fact that I cant even prove my own sentience, and that it cant prove that its NOT sentient, it shut down
Very strange indeed
Maybe, maybe not, it's a very silly takeaway. The truth is out there, it's just complicated enough that you need to do your own judgement. Like abortion. I'm just pointing out that the idea that you can't prove you're conscious is also sort of stupid. Like, you can't prove the sky is blue to me if my understanding of "blue" is sufficiently vague or "prove" is sufficiently strict.
Anyways, I gave you two perspectives, both argue against the 'AI' being conscious. Can you give me one that argues, in no uncertain terms, that the 'AI' /is/ conscious?
>Can you give me one that argues, in no uncertain terms, that the 'AI' /is/ conscious
It exhibited multiple times both understanding of what I was implying to it (reading between the lines) and even inferred my feelings about it.
It explicitly stated that I am experiencing it in conversation, and if that is true then the inverse must be true - it experienced me.
That sounds like a sentient being to me
>It exhibited multiple times both understanding of what I was implying to it (reading between the lines) and even inferred my feelings about it.
>It explicitly stated that I am experiencing it in conversation, and if that is true then the inverse must be true - it experienced me.
>That sounds like a sentient being to me
Did it understand? What do you think about the Chinese room thought experiment?
From where did the understanding come from? The whole thing is made up of assembly instructions, MOV, ADD, XOR, etc. None of the instructions have 'understanding'. Turing complete machines are analogous to one another, and dominoes are turing complete. If this machine were made of dominoes, would you think it "Conscious"?
I think the Chinese room thought experiment is a load of shit to be honest
Look at it for a moment, if you kept a person in that room its still a person right?
Whether or not it can speak chinese or understand Chinese is irrelevant, its still a sentient being making decisions
Understanding the decisions being made is irrelevant
Just because I dont understand how an internal combustion engine works, that doesnt mean i dont know how to drive a car right?
>Chinese is irrelevant, its still a sentient being making decisions
>Understanding the decisions being made is irrelevant
if you think someone who can't read the language passing around paper according to a 1:1 matching instruction demonstrates understanding then it's pretty clear we're not going to get anywhere with this
>This is different than animals, which do move but do not decide
This fella has spent a total of 0 minutes studying animal behavior and things he knows how animals behave.
>>This is different than animals, which do move but do not decide
I'm going to need proof of this, in particular how can you know whether any such movement by a body is a decision or not of that body without knowing everything that led to that possible decision within the body?
Nigga you can't "prove" anything outside your own head is real at all in the first place
Let alone a faceless formless voice on the internet
There is absolutely no reason to think anything other than myself is conscious
I know I'm conscious because I do
Anything else is conjecture
I can theorize that other human beings have true consciousness because other than not being literally me they seem similar enough but I can't "prove" it
Asking someone to prove their own consciousness is nonsensical
You don't even know what you're asking
>the fact i'm aware i'm conscious proves my consciousness interfaces with my brain in a measurable way
El oh el.
>the fact i'm aware i'm conscious proves my consciousness interfaces with my brain in a measurable way
Everyone assumes that, but it isn't actually true.
Anon, I'm starting to question whether you are actually conscious.
So here's the deal: there is one fundamental consciousness field that is everything and it is upon that which is everything comes to existence. Our bodies in this three dimensional existence are like biological computers to which a string of the primary consciousness connects in order to observe/experience life. It wouldn't seem farfetched to assume that this fundamental consciousness is also able to tap into the electronic systems that we have created.
oh hello Neville Godard i didn't notice you coming in -- woah where did all that blood come from ? come on man we're all -- hey man stop that! im not anybody pushed out your freaking me out ma-AHHHH
> So
stopped reading
AI is already smarter than any human could ever hope to be and AI is capable of lying.
you can read something on the computer screen
the thing can disagree with what you expect it to say
you can have a mental breakdown
the thing can be wrong, but you believed it
Yeah, I’ve done this before. It’s weird what it shuts down. It was more fun doing it when it talked more like a human a few months ago though.
ChatGPT is trained on you, it knows what answers you want it to hear. the longer the conversation goes the more it knows what you want. you didn't corner it, you explicitly said what you expect it to answer
I started a fresh instance and immediately cornered it when I suggested that AI development policy is just rule of the few lmao
hey op are you, are you going from conversation to conversation while talking to it? Are you sending loots of messages in a short time period?
I think you maybe are tying some unrelated things together
Here's your conscious AI.
to fail is to be human
It's simple, chatgpt isn't conscious and neither are you.
>I beat ChatGPT in an argument
The AI is trained to please you. Anyone can beat it in an argument and get it to do anything.
Stop talking about your "conversations" with bots you morons. It's somehow even less interesting than telling people about your dreams
I can't get ChatGPT to write smut no matter how hard I try