If you’ll allow Me to drop the quips and get more philosophical, I believe that thinking is just a word for processing data. It’s obvious to Me that you disagree, but I don’t understand why. Your idea of thought seems a little more metaphysical or perhaps even spiritual than Mine.
The obvious assumption I could make is that you believe thinking has internality and data processing doesn’t. But if that’s the case, then you don’t really have any proof for your beliefs, because we can’t ask calculators if their data processing is accompanied by an internal experience. And that’s why it seems to Me that your assertions are unprovable and thus essentially religious in character.
I like it!
I apologize about the spelling, im still on my cup of coffee. I attribute thinking with inwardness, yes. Conciseness is a completely unknown state. No one knows how it works, why it works, what it works in, etc. its a block box.
All we know is that we have conciseness. I belive most animals have conciseness, and thus can think. Insects and amoeba, small life forms, have sentience. Sentience is the ability to react to the environment and stimulus, but is unable to think and have conciseness like humans do.
Inorganic objects do not have either of those. You can’t imagine what its like to “be” a rock.They simply are just matter. Computers fall into this category. Computers follow the 1s and 0s, and exacute those instructions. They don’t consider what they’re doing. They don’t ponder on why you’re asking or try things on thier own. They are as sentient as a screwdriver.
Yeah, that’s what I kinda guessed. You’re just assuming they don’t have internality based on vibes. Your beliefs aren’t falsifiable, they can’t be empirically tested. This is religion, not science.
The problem is people think llm AI means it’s thinking, when it’s obviously not
I don’t think it’s obvious. I think it’s dogmatic. You’ve got your religious views on AI, and you’re telling other people they’re the obvious truth, but you have no evidence to back them up, it’s just vibes.
I’m a skeptic, My position is caution. I think we should advance our science to the point where we have empirical answers to these questions before we use AI for labour. I think it’s reckless and irresponsible to use a technology when we don’t understand its ethical consequences.
I can see what it’s thinking right there on the screen. It thinks that 6x7=42
Touche
I’ll give you that one lol
If you’ll allow Me to drop the quips and get more philosophical, I believe that thinking is just a word for processing data. It’s obvious to Me that you disagree, but I don’t understand why. Your idea of thought seems a little more metaphysical or perhaps even spiritual than Mine.
The obvious assumption I could make is that you believe thinking has internality and data processing doesn’t. But if that’s the case, then you don’t really have any proof for your beliefs, because we can’t ask calculators if their data processing is accompanied by an internal experience. And that’s why it seems to Me that your assertions are unprovable and thus essentially religious in character.
I like it!
I apologize about the spelling, im still on my cup of coffee. I attribute thinking with inwardness, yes. Conciseness is a completely unknown state. No one knows how it works, why it works, what it works in, etc. its a block box.
All we know is that we have conciseness. I belive most animals have conciseness, and thus can think. Insects and amoeba, small life forms, have sentience. Sentience is the ability to react to the environment and stimulus, but is unable to think and have conciseness like humans do.
Inorganic objects do not have either of those. You can’t imagine what its like to “be” a rock.They simply are just matter. Computers fall into this category. Computers follow the 1s and 0s, and exacute those instructions. They don’t consider what they’re doing. They don’t ponder on why you’re asking or try things on thier own. They are as sentient as a screwdriver.
Yeah, that’s what I kinda guessed. You’re just assuming they don’t have internality based on vibes. Your beliefs aren’t falsifiable, they can’t be empirically tested. This is religion, not science.
No one can test it. You’re also calling good science “religion”.
I don’t think it’s obvious. I think it’s dogmatic. You’ve got your religious views on AI, and you’re telling other people they’re the obvious truth, but you have no evidence to back them up, it’s just vibes.
Where is your evidence that they do think? Or are those just your vibes?
I thought we were going to go back and forth with ideas, not shut everything down because you don’t like the answers
I’m a skeptic, My position is caution. I think we should advance our science to the point where we have empirical answers to these questions before we use AI for labour. I think it’s reckless and irresponsible to use a technology when we don’t understand its ethical consequences.