Has AI become sentient?

[Polymath257]

Wishful thinking does not make for facts or truth. They have no evidence of that and can't even really define what consciousness is. It's immaterial and abstract. The "hard problem of consciousness" is nowhere near being solved.

Exactly. Wishful thinking about souls does not make them true. We have zero evidence of souls and a lot of evidence linking brain states to conscious states.

I don't think that there *is* a hard problem of consciousness: only soft problems, technical details to be worked out.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And I see imagination and consciousness as aspects of the complexity of brain structure and functioning.

The evidence is the wealth of information we have gained in the last century about the links between brain structure and properties of consciousness, and the ways we have learned to manipulate brain activity to produce conscious results.

We've known for millennia that we can "manipulate brain activity to produce conscious results". There's lots of things that change our conscious state, like drugs and music. I don't see how that proves that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. Wishful thinking about souls does not make them true. We have zero evidence of souls and a lot of evidence linking brain states to conscious states.

I don't think that there *is* a hard problem of consciousness: only soft problems, technical details to be worked out.

I don't have wishful thinking. I have my personal experiences, and there's centuries of those and also philosophical arguments. You may not be convinced by those things, but I don't really care what you or others believe. We'll all find out in the end. I'm prepared and preparing for that day. You do as you please.

 

[Polymath257]

We've known for millennia that we can "manipulate brain activity to produce conscious results". There's lots of things that change our conscious state, like drugs and music. I don't see how that proves that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Well, think deeper.

WHY do drugs cause such changes to our states of consciousness? What is it about certain chemicals that allows them to do this?

We *know* that these chemicals act on certain areas of the brain. And, the way they interact has a direct result in the effects produced by those chemicals. We can see how the prevalence of receptors in certain areas of the brain produce the effects on consciousness we actually observe.

That is *one* line of inquiry that supports that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. But it is far from the only line of evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Wishful thinking does not make for facts or truth. They have no evidence of that and can't even really define what consciousness is. It's immaterial and abstract. The "hard problem of consciousness" is nowhere near being solved.

So why are you wishful thinking?

You also have no evidence that a soul exist yet you are adamant on your position, so am i.

Medical science is beginning to fill yet another gap in woo believe. For me it can't come quick enough

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But the cue ball has a very simplistic response to its stimuli and has no internal representation of its environment. And, from what I can tell, complexity of the internal representation of the environment is a crucial aspect of sentience.

By pushing the notion of sentience to a place that cannot be tested is a dangerous thing. It reminds me of the debates about whether women had souls or whether slaves were people.

Yes, use the Turing test and *surprise* the subject. See how it responds to novel situations and whether it seems to question itself and others. See if it responds in ways typical of people: which we know are sentient. See if it interrupts, stops and rethinks, etc. All good tests.

Once again, I don't know if the current case qualifies as sentient. I haven't seen the evidence, only the claims of one of the workers., who is probably not trained in the issues involved. But I don't see any reason to think sentience in a constructed machine is impossible, either.

It's that "internal representation" thing that really troubles me -- even about human sentience. Let me try an example.

We know that are wired in a way possibly vaguely analogous to neural network circuitry. (The analogy probably is better the other way round, but never mind). So there could be a reason to suppose that silicon circuits, properly connected and networked, may well be able to mimic what our brains can do. But I can think of examples in which I know (by result) what my brain has done, but I do not think that I (or it) was even conscious of it. Here's the example:

I like to do cryptic crosswords, but sometimes the clue is so cryptic I just cannot find it, no matter what I try. But I have learned that if I turn away, move on and do something else, and come back -- as often as not I (the conscious I) will be "presented" with an answer. I know that some unconscious part of my brain continued to somehow work the problem, and then notified the conscious me when done.

This suggests to me that there is another layer of neural net in my brain, sitting metaphorically "on top" of lower parts of my brain, where true sentience happens. I'm not sure, I mean, that the means by which my brain stores and retrieves information is done consciously at all.

So looking for sentience in AI, I would be looking for that "upper" layer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wishful thinking does not make for facts or truth. They have no evidence of that and can't even really define what consciousness is. It's immaterial and abstract. The "hard problem of consciousness" is nowhere near being solved.

I have as yet to see a time when a person claiming that scientists "have no evidence" has ever been right.

Why don't you ask what the evidence is. Even I know at least some of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why are you wishful thinking?

You also have no evidence that a soul exist yet you are adamant on your position, so am i.

Medical science is beginning to fill yet another gap in woo believe. For me it can't come quick enough

I always find it highly ironic when people that have no evidence demand evidence of others. And then to compound that "sin" they will make the false claim of the other side having no evidence. As I said, even I know of evidence that thought is just a physical process. For free here is a rather obvious one. If one damages a brain badly enough it also impairs the ability to reason quite often. Demonstrating that a physical change affects conscious thought. I am curious as to what evidence there is for a soul.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Without a soul, you wouldn't have an imagination, so it's actually the other way around, as I see it.

That is a statement supported by absolutely nothing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is a statement supported by absolutely nothing.

It's called a quip. Sorry you've lost your sense of humor.

 

[Stevicus]

Another sentient computer I recall from fiction was the M5, created as a mirror image of the mind of its creator, who went insane. I suppose if AI ever does become sentient, it might be like that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I believe consciousness and self-awareness are caused by our souls. A computer will never have a soul.

While I don't believe in a soul, I'm also in the camp who believe "conscious AI" is a pop-culture myth exaggerated in science fiction, and it may never see the light of day. The human brain is more complex than the world's supercomputers put together. We know that consciousness stops with physical death, but we have little to no knowledge of why we have consciousness or the details of the mechanisms that specifically give rise to it.

Not even the world's most advanced AI can behave as consciously as a cat. It can't make decisions based on desire, emotions, or instinct; only based on the datasets and algorithms it has been fed and learned from. An AI's computational prowess doesn't produce consciousness, and until or unless it does, I don't see AI ever reaching the level of sentience humans or cats have.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Just some videos on the topic:

As someone who studies AI and listens to experts in the field, I strongly recommend not taking Elon Musk's stance on the topic very seriously. He doesn't develop the AI used in his own vehicles, and his statements on AI are, like his statements on multiple other topics, loaded with too much hyperbole and sensationalism.

Many AI experts also believe Musk's outlandish claims about AI may hinder efforts to increase popular understanding of it, and for a good reason.

Some further articles on this that quote AI experts disagreeing with Musk's alarmism:

AI Researchers Disagree With Elon Musk's Warnings About Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Experts Respond to Elon Musk's Dire Warning for U.S. Governors

 

[Nimos]

As someone who studies AI and listens to experts in the field, I strongly recommend not taking Elon Musk's stance on the topic very seriously. He doesn't develop the AI used in his own vehicles, and his statements on AI are, like his statements on multiple other topics, loaded with too much hyperbole and sensationalism.

Many AI experts also believe Musk's outlandish claims about AI may hinder efforts to increase popular understanding of it, and for a good reason.

Some further articles on this that quote AI experts disagreeing with Musk's alarmism:

AI Researchers Disagree With Elon Musk's Warnings About Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Experts Respond to Elon Musk's Dire Warning for U.S. Governors

I don't know the exact stance each of these have. I do however like this statement

Elon Musk's remarks are alarmist. I recently surveyed 300 leading AI researchers and

the majority of them think it will take at least 50 more years to get to machines as smart as humans. So this is not a problem that needs immediate attention.

Hopefully they will be smarter, because if they are not it can only go wrong. Humans are not exactly known for not doing stupid things all the time

I do agree that currently it is probably a bit to early to have this discussion until we have some actual self guided intelligent AI. I remember someone posting a story about Siri or some other AI program that suggested that you should put a fork in an outlet or something as a fun thing. Can't remember the whole story, but maybe someone else can?

Anyway, this will or could potentially end in problems, lets say that someone gets hurt or killed after having made use of some of these programs and followed their advise thinking that its safe. Are the creators going to be held accountable or not? So even if Elon musk might be overreacting or talking about some far more advanced AI's. This topic still need to be addressed.

In the first video I posted in the conversation with Pluto, the person say:

"It sounds beautiful"

to which the AI answer:

"I assure you that it is worth the trip. However you need to bring your coat, because its really cold"

And its obviously a joke and it might be to overthinking it. But saying that its worth the trip and not that it could be deadly for humans travelling there and making a joke about it, doesn't seem like it is taking the potential danger very seriously in regards to humans.
Again, its obvious for everyone that you can't simply travel to Pluto and have a walk, but what if it had been something else, like a lagoon and there are dangerous snakes or whatever and it "assure" people that it is worth the trip. Maybe it suggest a child to do something, assuming that it knows that something is dangerous or it might be a person which suffers from some mental issue or whatever.

Anyway I hope you see what I mean?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Because mental activities register in the brain, in no way indicates that consciousness originates or even resides there. Because the impulses that propitiate movement occur in the nervous system, does that mean the will to move originates there? Of course not. We can’t even decide what free will is, or how much of it we have. Yet we can reduce it to an electrical impulse originating in the central nervous system?

Sure, we can construct an abstract definition of consciousness, and further determine that an AI embodies the qualities which we assign to our abstract construct. But this answers nothing really, not even the questions we ourselves have contrived to meet the standards we the observer have set.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As someone who studies AI and listens to experts in the field, I strongly recommend not taking Elon Musk's stance on the topic very seriously. He doesn't develop the AI used in his own vehicles, and his statements on AI are, like his statements on multiple other topics, loaded with too much hyperbole and sensationalism.

Many AI experts also believe Musk's outlandish claims about AI may hinder efforts to increase popular understanding of it, and for a good reason.

Some further articles on this that quote AI experts disagreeing with Musk's alarmism:

AI Researchers Disagree With Elon Musk's Warnings About Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence Experts Respond to Elon Musk's Dire Warning for U.S. Governors

Elon Musk is an absolutely world class snake oil salesman, I can’t believe anyone takes a single one of his manipulative public statements on an subject remotely seriously. Have to admit the guy is box office though.

 

[RestlessSoul]

So why are you wishful thinking?

You also have no evidence that a soul exist yet you are adamant on your position, so am i.

Medical science is beginning to fill yet another gap in woo believe. For me it can't come quick enough

So you don’t have to contemplate the possibility that there is more to your existence than an ego residing in a body?

 

[ChristineM]

So you don’t have to contemplate the possibility that there is more to your existence than an ego residing in a body?

The brain is very complex but its ultimate a clever organ.

There is evidence for this

There is no evidence for a soul. That's a belief centred in the brain

 

[RestlessSoul]

The brain is very complex but its ultimate a clever organ.

There is evidence for this

There is no evidence for a soul. That's a belief centred in the brain

Belief may or may not be centred in the brain; but the soul, I believe, is connected to the infinite, and is therefore has no specific spatial or temporal co-ordinates.

Through spiritual rather than intellectual practice, we can become one with the universe, and with God. There is centuries of evidence for this, in the form of personal testimonies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Belief may or may not be centred in the brain; but the soul, I believe, is connected to the infinite, and is therefore has no specific spatial or temporal co-ordinates.

Through spiritual rather than intellectual practice, we can become one with the universe, and with God. There is centuries of evidence for this, in the form of personal testimonies.

No, there are only centuries of wishing this.

Since this appears to be a scientific debate the proper evidence is scientific. There is no scientific evidence for the soul. There is scientific evidence for thought to be a purely natural process.