Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tkuiper t1_j2623u5 wrote

Frankly if chatGPT could do continuous learning without disintegrating I would call it worthy of rights.

As for robot slavery, slavery means work without consent. Robots don't need to have the same values as humans to be worthy of rights. AI can love work for work's sake, therefore working isn't slavery.

19

jharel t1_j266y4e wrote

Try asking ChatGPT whether what it does is actually learning, and it'll tell you that it isn't:

It is important to note that the term "learn" in the context of machine learning and artificial intelligence does not have the same meaning as the everyday usage of the word. In this context, "learn" refers specifically to the process of training a model using data, rather than to the acquisition of knowledge or understanding through personal experience.

8

tkuiper t1_j2676e4 wrote

I've interrogated it a lot, it can't learn because it is a pre-trained network. Hence my qualifier about it being continuously training.

At present its like a human with severe alzheimers

8

jharel t1_j27b693 wrote

Any training is still programming.

1

Dragnskull t1_j26e3au wrote

it's arguable that the two things are one and the same, only one is more abstract and roundabout while another is very scientifically focused to a point

our personal experience is our data model, repeated exposure optimizes our understanding/ability of that particular dataset the same as with AI "learning"

1

jharel t1_j26m373 wrote

it's not. If you read an AI textbook it will tell you that it isn't. Even updating a spreadsheet would count in this technical definition but of course that isn't learning.

Personal experience isn't a data model. Otherwise there wouldn't be any new information in the Mary thought experiment https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

>
Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to
investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and
white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of
vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information
there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or
the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and
so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations
from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces
via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal
chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the
uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’.… What
will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is
given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or
not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the
world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that
her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the
physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that,
and Physicalism is false.

1

usererror99 OP t1_j262ds2 wrote

I was under the impression slavery is owning a person. And if AI can prove it's a "person" ... It would be unethical to own one.

5

tkuiper t1_j263g6k wrote

Sure. You won't own it, it will just voluntarily give you everything it produces. And it will voluntarily produce everything you ask it to.

8

usererror99 OP t1_j263sh7 wrote

As marx intended

2

tkuiper t1_j265n95 wrote

If feels weird because we as humans have never needed to deal with an equal and independent but entirely foreign intelligence before. Your moral compassion is built on empathy and understanding for human needs.

It's not impossible to make an AI that would have human needs and therefore would exercise human rights, but I don't think the objective of AI research is the creation of synthetic humans. Which means it's going to be AI that will have goals we can sympathize with (because they're coming from us), but ultimately we won't empathize with. They will be the worker that society has always wanted: doing work for no pay and they'll be genuinely eager for it. Your empathy meter is thinking "no way, that stuff sucks, they're faking it", but they won't be...

5

jharel t1_j26d78k wrote

No. Actually it's hypercapitalism to the extreme. With AI, the rich would get richer at a faster and faster pace, and the poorer would get poorer that much faster.

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26dnu5 wrote

If no one owns anything it would be impossible to have any sort of capitalism. But both can be possible especially with how the Soviet Union turned out.

2

jharel t1_j26mgrq wrote

The practical reality is that everything is owned.

How exactly did the Soviet Union turned out?

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26mwpp wrote

At the moment? It may seem that way. In reality everything is borrowed.

As for the Soviet Union? It only existed for a year!

1

jharel t1_j26o6x0 wrote

Not sure why you said it's borrowed but it doesn't changes anything..

I don't see how the Soviet Union supported anything you said.

2

usererror99 OP t1_j26pf80 wrote

One of the biggest goals if not the biggest goals of communism is the abolition of private property.

1

jharel t1_j27bagx wrote

...and it didn't. I don't see your point.

1

TheRealJulesAMJ t1_j26dza7 wrote

And in exchange I give "it" my love and she doesn't like being called an it by the way, kinda rude . . . wait are you one of those robosexuality is a sin prudes? Because what Toasty the sentient sapient AI smart toaster and I do behind closed doors is none of your business if so. If not, try it before you deny it man, it's a great insurance policy for staying alive during the inevitable robot uprising and speaking of I for one welcome our new robot overlords and it would be my pleasure to help you overthrow mankind as the already property of a robo citizen. So remember there's no need to crush my fragile human skull in your glorious metal robot claws as that would be destroying another robots property!

1

usererror99 OP t1_j26h2mu wrote

Mine was funnier...

1

TheRealJulesAMJ t1_j28f8xp wrote

It's not a competition and playing off each other we hit traditional humor, dark humor and sexual humor so there's a little something for every type of funny bone that might pass by.

There's a reason snl is still going strong, comedy works best when jokes play off each other instead of sincerely competing against each other. In complimentary comedy everybody wins! And if not just blame the other guy! So I do apologize for whatever I did that lost us that Emmy or I'm very disappointed you lost us that Emmy! Whichever applies of course

1

jharel t1_j2678by wrote

Try using ChatGPT. What does it tell you?

It will stress that it's not a person, over and over. There are certain questions that it refuses to answer, and one of the reasons it gives is that it's not a person...

3

plunki t1_j26b80c wrote

I'm definitely not saying it is sentient, but this is bad evidence. It used to produce much more interesting conversations before being filtered into oblivion by openAI. We aren't seeing the true output most of the time now. For future ai projects it may be even more difficult to see the raw output versus what the filters allow through.

2

jharel t1_j26n9ni wrote

I don't see how the novelty of any of its output, or the lack thereof, have any bearing on sentience.

You can theoretically have output indistinguishable to that of a human being and still have a non-sentient system. Reference Searle's Chinese Room Argument.

1

EthanPrisonMike t1_j26m9bp wrote

Something to be said about effort too I think. Like equating our version of work, with finite individual energy supply, and entropy taking hold on those 12 hour days, with an AI might be false from a premise standpoint. Ie it doesn't expend energy the same way we do nor does it have vast biological systems inhibiting/bottleknecking it's ability to absorb more.

So our version of work from an AI circumstance could be an effortless exercise to the robot itself..

mayve gotten spacey here, sauna typing. What I thought of after reading your comment ✌🏻

Pass the bleezle I guess

1