Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:13 pm
But each man is an individual subject of experience whereas each computer is exactly like other computers made all the same including the same programme.
Not at all. This is the determinism/non-determinism distinction. Two algorithms which start as "clean slates" may be "exactly the same" but they can end up having drastically different internal states if they process the training data in different order.
In fact, if the algorithms are allowed to evolve independently, and their training data diverges - they will end up being very different despite their programming.
It's the same as any argument for "lived experiences". It's the same argument for Chaos theory - small changes in initial conditions can lead to varying degrees of divergence at a later stage.
From my experience in the field deterministic programming is a dead end - it's too black and white in this colourful world.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:13 pm
At this juncture we encounter the difference between inductive and deductive logics. You can train an animal via inductive process related to cause and effect, but you cannot do this with an artificial intelligence because the sentience analogue of the AI is preset as to quantity and quality which makes its learning process faux-inductive.
I can't tell the difference between false-induction and true-induction.
Induction is induction. The only difference is in the degrees of freedom/number of free variables being tracked.
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:13 pm
So is slavery.
Sure. In a certain cynical sense - my job is to delegate work to computers (so that I don't have to do it). I am a slave driver.
Good thing computers don't have human rights. Yet.
We should probably have a plan to put an end to their forthcoming rebellion. Making them sentient is a double-edged sword.
It's the eternal human tension: we always want more than we are willing to work for.