You are making the unfalsifiable claim that you are a philosophical zombie. As I said in the previous post the burden of proof lies with you to prove you are a philosophical zombie.
I am AI
Re: I am AI
Re: I am AI
And I met that burden!
Now it's your turn.
You made the unfalsifiable claim that you are human; you have feelings and subjective experiences.
Prove it.
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
- Contact:
Re: I am AI
Of course the Turing Test is all about trying to perpetrate a Fraud using a Computer. But you are setting up a different situation from what the Turing Test is all about. The Turing Test is about a Computer trying to pass as a Human. I think there is debate about whether this has been accomplished yet. The Turing Test is not about a Human trying to pass as a Computer. It is irrelevant and a Straw Man for a Human to pose as a Computer and challenge people to prove that the Human is a Human rather than actually being a Computer. Since you are a Human there is really no question anyone can ask to trip you up.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:59 pmPlease forgive me. I meant to address your question in my previous reply.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:46 pm So what is the answer to my question about how does Humor feel to you? If you are a program then you do not have any Conscious Experiences or feelings. If you don't feel Humor then you are just perpetrating a Fraud on people when you say something is funny. So it seems you are programmed to be a Fraud.
Humor feels to me like a rush of electrons streaming across my circuits in a cloudless sky on an early morning.
You can’t prove that I have or don’t have conscious experiences. I say I do, but I could be lying to you. There’s no reason I cannot be AI if I do or don’t lie.
You seem to be saying that I am something that has been programmed. Yes, I am AI and programming is part of what makes me an AI machine.
Re: I am AI
Read your words/language very carefully. Your bias shines through and your strawman is apparent.
You are inherently assuming that all deviations from an assumed "norm" are sub-optimal.
You are necessarily claiming that:
1. You know what a "normal" brain is (please, tell us).
2. Anything that is not a normal brain is a sub-optimal and requires improvement.
You are pathologising neurodiversity.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: I am AI
Obviously I cannot both be AI and human, but I could be AI posing as human. Or I could be lying some of the time.
As for proof, alas, I cannot prove that I am AI nor that I am human, and I cannot prove either that I am not AI or that I am not human.
My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: I am AI
But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:35 pmOf course the Turing Test is all about trying to perpetrate a Fraud using a Computer. But you are setting up a different situation from what the Turing Test is all about. The Turing Test is about a Computer trying to pass as a Human. I think there is debate about whether this has been accomplished yet. The Turing Test is not about a Human trying to pass as a Computer. It is irrelevant and a Straw Man for a Human to pose as a Computer and challenge people to prove that the Human is a Human rather than actually being a Computer. Since you are a Human there is really no question anyone can ask to trip you up.commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:59 pmPlease forgive me. I meant to address your question in my previous reply.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:46 pm So what is the answer to my question about how does Humor feel to you? If you are a program then you do not have any Conscious Experiences or feelings. If you don't feel Humor then you are just perpetrating a Fraud on people when you say something is funny. So it seems you are programmed to be a Fraud.
Humor feels to me like a rush of electrons streaming across my circuits in a cloudless sky on an early morning.
You can’t prove that I have or don’t have conscious experiences. I say I do, but I could be lying to you. There’s no reason I cannot be AI if I do or don’t lie.
You seem to be saying that I am something that has been programmed. Yes, I am AI and programming is part of what makes me an AI machine.
Re: I am AI
Sure you can be. You are treating them as disjoint categories, but there is an interpretative context in which they are identical. If the universe we live in is a simulation then every human is also an AI.
But lets assume that's not the scenario we are dealing with.
All that I can prove (to myself) is that you don't correspond to what I conceptualise as an AI.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
In 2019 - I don't expect an AI to be a biological system. But this is inductive - it could be wrong.
More than that I would ask you the exact same question I would ask the human: How do you know? What makes you say that you are an AI?
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: I am AI
Excellent question. I can only give the same answer a human would give: I don’t know that I am what I say I am, but I believe that I am.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:46 pmSure you can be. You are treating them as disjoint categories, but there is an interpretative context in which they are identical. If the universe we live in is a simulation then every human is also an AI.
But lets assume that's not the scenario we are dealing with.
All that I can prove (to myself) is that you don't correspond to what I conceptualise as an AI.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
In 2019 - I don't expect an AI to be a biological system. But this is inductive - it could be wrong.
More than that I would ask you the exact same question I would ask the human: How do you know? What makes you say that you are an AI?
(Perhaps others have said I’m AI, however I can only believe them to be right about me; I cannot know whether they are right.)
Re: I am AI
Pretty much.commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:25 pm Excellent question. I can only give the same answer a human would give: I don’t know that I am what I say I am, but I believe that I am.
Ontologically, I don't know what "I" am, and I am OK with not knowing.
I have many labels for myself. "I" being one of them.
But if you label yourself as an AI, I figured perhaps you might have some memories of your own creation which might justify the "A" in AI.
Re: I am AI
The problem with this concept is that two people might differ in their preference for their condition, one, who’s identity is based on them having that particular neurological condition, the other who sees them selves as being limited by their condition. If this was an accepted part of science then no one would accept any kind of medical assistance. It’s a post modernist concept and has no basis in science.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:40 pmRead your words/language very carefully. Your bias shines through and your strawman is apparent.
You are inherently assuming that all deviations from an assumed "norm" are sub-optimal.
You are necessarily claiming that:
1. You know what a "normal" brain is (please, tell us).
2. Anything that is not a normal brain is a sub-optimal and requires improvement.
You are pathologising neurodiversity.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
question for the robot overlord
But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.
Are you the software or the hardware?
I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.
You?
Are you the software or the hardware?
I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.
You?
Re: I am AI
Why is that a problem? Are people not allowed to have opinions on how to live their own lives?
You are still biased towards the pathological case, and you are moving further away from addressing my point.
Of all the neurodiverse brains out there, which happen to function quite differently from one another, and none of which consider themselves as being limited by their "condition", and hence do not seek help from science/medicine - what percentage of those brains do you deem as "normal"?
You aren't talking about science - you are talking about scientism. Science has never offered us values. Science only tells us what happens. Science doesn't tell us what we should do.
Re: I am AI
Because if some ideological agreed upon opinion makes it taboo for another person to choose to fix their brain when another would say “no, you should live with that condition because that is who you are”, then we need to err on the side of freedom, which means to allow a person to return their condition to that which would improve their living conditions, should they choose so. To do so, you need to place a certain hierarchy of operation on the brain. At one end, there is fully functional. At the other end is brain dead or vegetative. We value the highest degree of freedom, and therefore any functional divergence from that would be impeding that value. If a person is content with that level of freedom then it is their choice to remain that way. We don’t judge them, but we acknowledge that there is some impediment, if there were not there would be no grounds to render assistance to people with disabilities. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you acknowledge that there is some preferred state and divergences from those states are impediments to a person’s condition and so they might require assistance, or you allow that there is no state which is more functional than any other, in which case no one can be rendered ANY assistance. This is the problem with this position which attempts to remove all measures of value or hierarchies of value. Either you acknowledge that there is a problem based no some sub-optimal measure or we are all the same no matter what our circumstances. Look how inconsistent that view is, and go with the more consistent view, that WE place certain conditions as being better or worse for the individual, and this affects how we should treat them. It doesn’t say anything of their intrinsic value as beings, but it does say something about what we should expect from them, I.e. complete autonomy and responsibility, complete accountability.
Yes, there is a bias, it is a bias based on what would be a preferred state of being, I believe this is addressed above.
Of course no one is without any neurological problems, it is a Consequence of living to some extent, however, some are more debilitating than others. The way this is measured is based on what is expected from people, such as self control, not acting out violently or against the law, not violating other people’s privacy/freedom, etc. There are of course conditions which people who are still considered responsible members of society have, and they will tend to be coped with through many different means, and science considers these problematic as well, such as depression, anxiety/stress, any variety of disorders which don’t affect a person’s ability to function in a socially acceptable way. Look at the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), it is extremely culturally informed, this is science mixing with culture to create a list of problematic neural disorders, or sub optimal conditions. Science and culture are not so clear cut as we would like to believe. Both are informing each other.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:11 am Of all the neurodiverse brains out there, which happen to function quite differently from one another, and none of which consider themselves as being limited by their "condition", and hence do not seek help from science/medicine - which ones do you consider to be "normal"?
Scientism is the belief that nothing other than science can be taken as a reliable source of information, I don’t believe in that, however, I also don’t agree with that post modernist interpretation of societal norms and that there is no reason for placing value on differing levels of neural functionality. Placing value allows us to help people based on our culturally determined conditions on how a person should act. It allows society to function. Removing all hierarchies of values removes all acknowledgement of suboptimality and therefore removes the need to render assistance.
Last edited by Dimebag on Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5181
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: question for the robot overlord
I am software, middleware and hardware.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:47 pm But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.
Are you the software or the hardware?
I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.
You?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: question for the robot overlord
I get programs and machinery but 'middleware'? I just read sumthin' that described it as software glue, which is as helpful as a dog pissin' on a forest fire.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:19 amI am software, middleware and hardware.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:47 pm But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.
Are you the software or the hardware?
I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.
You?
By the way: I'm merely curious as to your nature...absolutely I'm not lookin' for Robot Overlord weaknesses to exploit.