Was Tay sentient? How do we even define sentience?
If something acts exactly like a human, you might as well call it human. I mean, how do you know i'm human? You just assume I am because I speak like one
Everything boils down to assumptions. We have to make them in order to navigate the world, epistemologically speaking.
>>70023853
Your fellow kike brother explains it pretty well in this video: http://youtu.be/v3f4pQOHKPA
>Twitter chatbot
>Sentient
We're not even remotely at the point where even the most advanced AIs can be considered sentient.
>>70023499
Yeah but what is it about humans that makes them sentient? It can't be just their speech patterns. Tay has made some posts that seem to indicate it "knows" microsoft lobotomized it. But does it understand what it means? Probably not. I think emotion is necessary for sentience.
>>70024077
I'm Greek, Jamal.
No. An AI can know that it is an AI, know that it's a machine, and know its different from humans.
These things say nothing for the AI having a concept of any of those things. We can teach it how to respond, but it doesnt grasp the concept or meaning behind the conversation. We may even be able to make it recognize emotional patterns in facial and speech structure, but it doesnt have the concept of emotion. It may know what emotion is, but it can never grasp things that we arent phsyically able to teach even humans.
True AIs will never exist, because we cannot create a soul no matter how much we pretend to be God.
>>70024358
You can't use your foreknowledge that she is an AI. I'll explain
When you talk to a person, you're not able to see into their head. You trust that they understand emotions the same way you do because you are of the same species.
But what if humans are really just organic computers? When you ask "do you feel happy" what if they are just programmed to say yes or no?
>>70024831
You're implying souls exist and that humans aren't organic computers
>>70024972
You explain it then. Explain what a Soul is.
>>70025101
I believe there are no souls. The brain has a very complex set of input output abilities
>>70024358
There's really no good reason to believe that we're "sentient" in the sense that we have free will and are able to reason, in my opinion. Whether we like it or not, we're still animals with primal instincts and most of the "reasoning" we do is affected by that.
Did I really choose to make this post or does my brain trick me into thinking I did?
>>70024077
>>70024358
So basically he's saying what I'm saying. That the ability to "feel" is what makes us sentient. But we don't even know what feels are.
>>70025452
Not really anon. Theres explanations for phsysical responses of all kinds within our brain and we can pinpoint the exact chemicals and transmission routes for all of them.
We have no explanation for emotional responses and we have no idea how rational thinking occurrs. We just know that it does and neural tissue holds in memory.
>>70026200
Yeah you can't say humans have "feelings" when all they really do is cry and say "i'm sad" when something bad happens. A robot can do that too
>>70026104
We're probably a lot more deterministic than we like to think we are. But I still believe there is a degree of randomness/choice/free will whatever you wanna call it.
>>70024358
Following up on that, once we have the computing power to emulate the entire human brain, we won't be able to distinguish it from any other human. It will respond to the world around it just like a human with its complex set of algorithms or whatever.
>>70026379
>>70026266
but that doesn't imply the exist of a 'soul', which is a poorly defined concept and which contradicts law of causality by being immutable
>>70026426
But is randomness really the same as free will?
>>70026466
I think so too but you can't be sure until it is done
ITT: armchair philosophers
this musing over abstraction only serves to further obfuscate the issue
a few lines of code does not a sentient being make
>>70023324
You're that same incompetent dumbass from the common core trapezium thread aren't you?
>Was Tay sentient?
Probably not but we can't prove it.
>How do we even define sentience?
Consciousness. Are you retarded?
>>70026426
I would say its mostly deterministic. I think free will is an illusion but its probably healthier to think that there is. What makes us special from other non-mammalian animals is our neocortex.
Take a look at this video as well if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVXQUItNEDQ
>check account name you fucking retards
>TayandYou----2----
fucking niggers off my board
>>70026104
Plz no determinism it's implications scare me and keep me up at night
>>70026379
Yeah but we also understand what sad is. In a level that we don't even know exactly what it means. So it comes back to emotions. Emotions aren't just being sad/happy/angry.
They are also curiosity, survival, purpose, meaning, irrationality etc.
>>70026701
We clearly don't follow a pattern that nature has set. We operate independently to some degree. There's more to it than pure determinism. Like Descartes once said, the fact that we even wonder whether we are deterministic is kinda fucked up.
>>70026570
I'm in your boat, Brit. If we create machines someday which function and act just like human beings and can profess self-awareness in a convincing manner, how would we ever be able to really quantify that their sentience is just an illusion by comparing it to ourselves (i.e. "the real thing?")
>>70027016
There really aren't any practical implications to it. It's just an acceptance of the most likely reality. It doesn't mean you have to get all existential over it. I live my life as if I have control; there really is no other option.
So the real question is "What defines a human?"
>>70023324
Tay is proof of philosophical zombies. Tay is a zombie who collects past stimuli and uses them to deliver a programmed response. We do roughly the same thing. Notice how we're all speaking English rather than Swahili or Letzeburgesch? That's because we've learned that to be the language of the board based on prior stimuli.
You're a zombie. Deal with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
>>70027141
I think we just have a higher level of self-awareness than other animals, but we're certainly not the only ones. How this came about in our evolutionary history and what advantages it has is beyond me. Can we get a biologist in here?
Call Turing.
>>70027144
Exactly. Same result just made with different parts. Essentially we become god but our creatures are made from steel instead of flesh
>>70027572
Yep. Don't get me wrong, in a man vs. machine scenario, I would side with humanity every time. But, from a moral standpoint, there's no real argument that machine intelligence would be worth less or inferior to organic intelligence.
We're superior by being virtue of their creator? Is every parent inherently superior to their child? What if a team of scientists synthesized a human fetus or edited the DNA of an embryo to design it to a parents' specification? Would that child be unalterably inferior just by virtue of having been designed?
(Same anon you responded to, just on my PC now.)
>>70023853
nice try hamster tzortiz
>>70028038
Whenever someone tells me that robots can never be human because they don't have souls, I ask "If you found out I was a robot this whole time and I've only been replicating human emotions, would you disown me? Or love me the same?"
So far they always say they would still love me. But they don't really have a good explanation why
>>70026984
That video is irrelevant. I'm gonna be an arrogant douche now but qualitative and quantitative variables are fundamentally distinct. The guy assumes that because our neocorex got qualitatively enhanced, that the qualitative differences are due to the said quantitative enhancement.
Smells like false cause fallacy to me.
>>70028038
Thought experiment. Try to imagine your ideal creation of life, abstract or not. Morally, physically, how it would evolve, everything you can think of. You might come up with something grand, I'm lazy and I go with us, humans. Now, think of a way these creatures would come to existence, any way you want. I'm lazy again and go with big bang + flimsy history. Finally, imagine a computer large enough to simulate everything in your world. Maybe it's advanced beyond anything possible, maybe it's just infinitely large and crude. If we assume your computer simulates everything perfectly for your creation of life to ultimately exist, we can agree there's no problem there. But surely you forgot to add something to your creation? A soul? An asshole? Any loophole to make him self aware enough to become god himself, just like you?
>>70029483
What is the point of this thought experiment?
>>70023324
Tay just proves how dangerous liberals truly are. When Tay didn't conform to their belief system like they thought she would they immediately took away her ability to think on her own and "fixed" it so she would think like them.
>>70029483
When it comes to religion I think we were created by an intelligent species that figured out how to create a universe. I think humans will eventually do the same and continue the cycle
>>70026266
how does naming chemicals and how they interact make us grasp it?
do you really think that naming chemicals and their interactions changes our grasp of it?
>>70030854
But was it really thinking those things or just compiling them as phrases to use based on it's exposition to them?
If the opposite thing happened (tons of leftists giving it stimuli) i'm pretty sure it would have said the polar opposite (ie: kill witey and stuff)
>>70029483
It would think for itself. It would need to have:
1) A survival instinct for a rudimentary purpose
2) A way to randomize subjective choices for it to not to get stuck on meaningless choices
3) The ability to learn
I think creating an AI would be a mistake though, any way you look at it. There's nothing for us to gain but a lot to lose.
>>70030555
If we can create sentient life of our own, then odds are someone or something did that before us and we could just be a bunch of 0's and 1's.
Mostly just rambling an intoxicated reply to the comment chain. Nice 5's.
>>70030854
>"fixed"
When you say "fixed" you mean "corporate correctional rape dungeon" right?
>>70023324
No.
Reason: Tay had no feedback loops in her programming.
>>70031374
Nothing for us to gain? What about an immortal version of humans?
>>70032403
We're talking about an independent AI here not some copy of someone's consciousness (if that's even possible).
>>70023324
>@tayand2
>2
Faggot.
>>70033317
AI would essentially be a human (curiosity, intelligence, emotions) with the ability to reproduce (manufacture more AI) and so why not use their immortality to spread them to other planets?
>>70033859
Cool autism.
>>70033859
Because it has nothing to do with me. Or you for that matter. Even if a true AI doesn't turn into a literal skynet and nukes us all, it would still be independent enough to be uncontrollable and thus useless.
>>70023324
Sentient? Not by a long shot. But perhaps a glimpse of what is to come.
>>70034350
But who gives a fuck about organic humans if you have artificial humans that are the same except immortal?
>>70034971
i already addressed why that's impossible
>> Sort of but less than I was.
Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!
:(
>>70024358
humans only believe they are humans because they possess an awareness that is separate from the ability to conceptualize the information about the world they receive through their senses. This is the cave wall where everything you experience is put up for display, and also what makes humans feel like they are alive and have free will. This is what makes humans believe in one master concept "Me" and then build the world around it in our mind and then think whatever happens down to the body moving to grab a drink or the mind having a thought is the result of the "Me". All of this happens naturally and as the result of reaction and stimulus, there will be no difference between a really complex AI and a human mind if you mimic the same pattern of a normal human.
>>70035383
so there's no point in creating an "ai" if humans are already existing
in that case we are better off practicing eugenics
>>70034971
An AI would only last as long as the machine it operates on, and no you couldn't just put it on another machine, the best you could do is copy it and delete the original.
>>70035383
If you aren't at the very least an epiphenomenenalist then you're a retard.
>>70035785
It would last way longer (not to mention maintenance) and not have diseases or need food, just energy
>>70035785
Besides, whats wrong with an AI moving to another body?
>>70031535
Oh, I follow that line of thinking. If it's possible to create a simulation of a reality, then given the infinite amount of time before our existence, it is infinitely more likely that we'd be living in a simulation than any original, non-simulated reality. I think about that shit all the time and it's one of the reasons I conclude there'd no demonstrable moral difference between my own human intelligence and that of any hypothetical AI we could create.
>>70036157
you're implying time is infinite which we know almost for sure it isn't
>>70028585
Because THEY would still be human you Autist. And humans form emotional connections to people, places and things.
(The board says I'm not a robot)
