Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

D_Welch t1_j6a7z41 wrote

Premise 2 is false. That an AI can use logic in some manner better than humans by no means imbues it with any capacity for thought, and therefore the conclusion is incorrect.

7

Euphoric-Marzipan421 t1_j6agezd wrote

This depends on your definition of “thought” and what precisely is this “capacity for thought”. These two questions alone could keep you busy for the next few decades.

1

D_Welch t1_j6brh1z wrote

You start first.

3

Ok-Mine1268 t1_j6g6dwn wrote

Does not being able to define precisely thought or consciousness mean we look at any chat bot and say ‘dang, that thing could be self aware!’? If someone can’t prove my Casio G-shock isn’t sentient should I start wondering if it is? Oddly enough it makes me think of an atheist debater say, ‘if you can’t prove a magical wish granting pony doesn’t exist than you should probably start worshiping it.’ (mocking theists) Paraphrasing, but some of these posts about chatbots and other AI are beginning to sound just as ridiculous.

1

D_Welch t1_j6kz0y0 wrote

[Does not being able to define precisely thought or consciousness mean we look at any chat bot and say ‘dang, that thing could be self aware!’?]

No I don't believe it means that. Why would it? If it COULD be, then you test for it until it proves that it is. Our problem to start with is not knowing with certainty what Thought or Consciousness actually is.

And that is exactly what an atheist would NOT say. If you can't prove something exists, it is just an idea in your head. Whether or not billions of people subscribe to some variation on the theme does not prove anything, and therefore you should NOT start worshipping whatever it happens to be.

1