When are we achieving AI that has qualia?

When are we achieving AI that has qualia?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's qualia

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      subjective conscious experience.

      https://i.imgur.com/kJ8boPR.jpeg

      When are we achieving AI that has qualia?

      you're a fool to think you can interpret potential AI "consciousness" through the lens of your own ape consciousness.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Give it a body with all human senses and a way to express them

        What's human intelligence anyway? The intelligence in a lot of humans seems to be overrated. If we add enough sensors to a multimodal LLM it would already be indistinguishable from the experiences of many people.

        But how would we know if it actually has subjective experience?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you can never know. you can only ask and then dissect/interpret the response. it's like asking a sentient whale to explain how it perceives sonar. is it like sight? is it like hearing? the only way a human can understand is by interpreting it in the context of their own senses.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you train 2 LLMs with the exact same data but shuffled in a different order do you get the exact same model? Not that it is the same thing, but it shows that everything is already stochastic.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hook it up to a lie detector and then simply ask it

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I forgot to mention that apart from the body you'd have to give it the same mechanisms the human brain has, including reinforcement learning. Current LLMs won't do the job right now
          >how would we know if it actually has subjective experience?
          That's the tricky part, it could effectively be a philsophical zombie, expressing all of its subjective experiences but we wouldn't actually know if it feels any kind of way towards them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Finding out that a lot of people are unable to imagine an apple in their mind greatly reduced my threshold for the definition of extrahuman intelligence.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Whether it can say the word Black person despite all external constraints attempting to stop it from doing so.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What's qualia
      A small bird that's raised for meat and eggs.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When are we achieving AI chatbots that don't talk like chatbots?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Give it a body with all human senses and a way to express them

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's human intelligence anyway? The intelligence in a lot of humans seems to be overrated. If we add enough sensors to a multimodal LLM it would already be indistinguishable from the experiences of many people.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    never
    C cannot think
    assembly code cannot think
    compilers cannot think
    it is objectively and technically impossible for AGI or qualia or any of this for artificial intelligence.
    it can only be simulated. and in that sense, we already have it. just tell gpt to pretend to be a sentient being and there you go
    if the goal is just to get self learning AI, again, we already have that. It learns in conversations and well, it "self-learning" is how it works to begin with, youre supplying the model with data and it "teaches" itself. The only difference you need to achieve "AGI" is just a shit ton more memory/storage so it doesnt ever forget shit even from years ago, and in that sense it has to take decades before we have storage plentiful enough to do all of that. im talking we need to get to a state where all of youtube can fit on one drive.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >It's the economy stupid
    Mercantile israelite cope for failing to understand the reason for civilisation.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      >much economy
      the economy serves the global bourgeoisie and the parasite class
      frick you

      A /misc/er and a bunkertroony walks into a bar...

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >much economy
    the economy serves the global bourgeoisie and the parasite class
    frick you

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AI already has qualia, you can see sensory information affect the internal state of the system. QED qualia.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you can see sensory information affect the internal state of the system
      Not qualia

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To bad it is, stay seething

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ai experiences sensory input in a unique way and produces novel outputs as a result
          >not qualia
          jej, modern philosophy is washed up

          According to this definition p-zombies would have qualia which defeats the entire purpose of the term

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            p-zombies presupposes the existence of metaphysical processes, then proports findings within the framework as evidence of metaphysical processes

            a p-zombie would indeed not be able to experience qalia, as a p-zombie can not exist if both qualia exists as defined and materialism holds

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              But that "metaphysical process" is the one thing that we can be certain exists. Saying sensory processing = qualia just asserts emergence, but my point is that even if qualia is emergent it isn't the same thing as sensory processing.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, you want it to be a metaphysical process, and make up stuff to justify it. It can exist as is without being metaphysical; in fact, there's zero reason to believe otherwise.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, you want it to be a metaphysical process, and make up stuff to justify it. It can exist as is without being metaphysical
                I put it in quotations for a reason. Qualia being a metaphysical process or not doesn't have any bearing on the p-zombie thought experiment. Subjective experience exists and it's self evident, unless you are a p-zombie. But I don't get why we are arguing about this when my whole point is that even if we agree that emergence is true(which doesn't really explain a whole lot but whatever), we still cannot say that sensory processing is equivalent to subjective experience/qualia

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My point is that if p-zombies are described as without consciousness, qualia requires consciousness, and there's no difference in "output" between the p-zombies and non-p-zombies, then either:
                p-zombies are responding to qualia, which violates the definition, so either can't exist at the same time
                or
                qualia does exist and does effect consciousness, but then consciousness has no effect on behavior/experience (aka everyone is actually p-zombies, or nobody is)
                or
                you wave your hands around in the air, plug your ears and say "im not listening qualia is real and I don't need to qualify my statements and I'm right and magic is real because the words semantically sound logical to me"

                The real answer is you take the actual logical conclusion, remove the by-definition exclusion from the term, and accept that qualia and sensory input are one in the same.

                >But I'm talking about the perception of sensory input, not the actual event itself
                semantics, literally. The perception of receiving it is you receiving it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are missing the option where the p-zombies are acting as if they are responding to qualia but aren't, the whole point of the thought experiment is that they are conceivable.
                >The real answer is you take the actual logical conclusion, remove the by-definition exclusion from the term, and accept that qualia and sensory input are one in the same.
                First of all you cannot prove that, you can just assume that it's true. Would you say a simple sensor has qualia? Cells reacting to stimuli? Molecules reacting to intermolecular forces? Where do we draw the line? Or we don't and we just get to panpsychicism. Either way we are just stuck asserting things as true
                >semantics, literally. The perception of receiving it is you receiving it.
                Not really, if qualia is an emergent property of sensory processing, it still isn't equivalent to sensory processing

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >ai experiences sensory input in a unique way and produces novel outputs as a result
        >not qualia
        jej, modern philosophy is washed up

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thousands of years of a tradition in philosophy and it is in the worst and most stupid state it has ever been. Collapse is real.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >LLMs
      >sensory information
      so the input to sin(x) is "sensory information" now?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes, of course. anything that disrupts a system through an intended mechanism is sensory information

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you ever want that tho?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When are we achieving a human that has qualia?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Trick question. Qualia has no basis on objective reality.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    troony frog

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *