The Sentient AI Trap

[PointOfViewGun]

Wasn't it Cookiegod that mentioned determinism first in his post #60? The functional determinism usage came 2 pages later.

[Cookiegod]

Wasn't it Cookiegod that mentioned determinism first in his post #60? The functional determinism usage came 2 pages later.

first use of the term non-determinism is #88. And oh look:

For the context of the topic we're having right here, the brain is functionally non-deterministic. It cannot, as I have said multiple times already, reproduce the exact same processing twice.

Oh wow, so unclearly phrased, so easy to misunderstand. Much wow.

Previous mentions did reference deterministic as the counterpart, but rather than using the term functionally nondeterministic, I explained its operation directly, such as in #60:

Calculators and computers in general work deterministic, brains on the other hand do a statistical assessment, and when doing a task repeatedly, it does not reproduce the exact same approach as before.

Again, much wow, so much ambiguity. So difficult to process. It might as well be Sumerian.

You can see a more or less complete list of quotes in #132. Truly ridiculous how many times one can repeat himself and people continuing to act stupid and continuing to ignore what was actually said.

@ CG I'm sticking with my opinion that an unqualified use of "non determinism" is at the very least likely to be taken as a statement about fundamental physics. I don't subscribe to your apparent pov that from the subject of the discussion it should be obvious we're talking not about that, but about 'functional determinism'. I know you referred to it in that sense, but .... gasp.... you're not the only participant in this thread and not the one that the comment that started off this whole tangent was addressed to.

In any case, I really don't think there's anything of substance to be found here. Use the term 'functional determinism' if you want, as long as you realize it is a human construct. And sure, such constructs may be inevitable in human research, but that's not some sort of license to disregard their imperfections.

How can you claim that "functionally non-deterministic" is "unqualified use" when "functionally" is pretty much the essence of a qualifier?

Like seriously, we need to change the topic of this into English 102. No one here willing to address anything of substance anyway.


EDIT: Oh I was wrong. First time use of the term was post #74 here:

Computers are made of usually static connections, out of metals and silicate. The human brain however is malleable, constantly changing, also physically. It is nondeterministic in its function. Computers, on the other hand, are not. The end result will thus always be very, very, very different [...]

I have to admit that having the two words "in" and "its" between "nondeterministic" and "function" can overexert people's attention span. My apologies.

[PointOfViewGun]

"It is nondeterministic in its function" and "functionally nondeterministic" means two different things. This cop out phrase that you're banking on does not change anything. In fact "functionally nondeterministic" is an empty terminology that doesn't really have much meaning. You are simply diluting your own position. If anything its you admitting that all the criticism of your assertions does indeed have a basis.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sigh... "nondeterministic in its function" defines that the function is nondeterministic; meaning the outcome is not knowable even if you have all the information in the universe. "functionally nondeterministic" on the other hand is a phrase you started using later in your posts to argue that since we don't have the resources to have all the data in the universe we can not completely know the outcome of a process for sure. You moved from claiming that the brain is nondeterministic to "ok, its not nondeterministic but based on our capabilities we can only perceive it to be nondeterministic." You have been unable to back up either statement.

[Cookiegod]

Sigh... "nondeterministic in its function" defines that the function is nondeterministic; meaning the outcome is not knowable even if you have all the information in the universe. "functionally nondeterministic" on the other hand is a phrase you started using later in your posts to argue that since we don't have the resources to have all the data in the universe we can not completely know the outcome of a process for sure. You moved from claiming that the brain is nondeterministic to "ok, its not nondeterministic but based on our capabilities we can only perceive it to be nondeterministic." You have been unable to back up either statement.

lol what?! Apart from your interpretations differing wildly from standard use of the English language (like since the very start with your nonstandard definition of "intelligence"), what I argue hasn't changed one iota from the very beginning, as you can see in the selection of quotes in post 132. What hasn't changed either is your inability to argue any of the arguments and points made, or you demanding backing up while having never done any of the sort so far, and never refraining from holding on to untenable positions.

EDIT: Tell you what. How about you and I play a game. Here are two example sentences not written by me, and you tell me what in its function means to you there:

[alhoon]

Please remember that in the academy you should try to make your posts impersonal, per the academy forum rules. Please respect that rule or posts will start getting deleted

[PointOfViewGun]

lol what?! Apart from your interpretations differing wildly from standard use of the English language (like since the very start with your nonstandard definition of "intelligence"), what I argue hasn't changed one iota from the very beginning, as you can see in the selection of quotes in post 132. What hasn't changed either is your inability to argue any of the arguments and points made, or you demanding backing up while having never done any of the sort so far, and never refraining from holding on to untenable positions.
EDIT: Tell you what. How about you and I play a game. Here are two example sentences not written by me, and you tell me what in its function means to you there:

How about you tell us what's my nonstandard definition of intelligence?

[swabian]

Ok. Here's what we are going to do. Prove to us without a shadow of a doubt that the brain is deterministic. So far you've only made random unsourced claims. Prove your point.

I have explained above. You and the other guy are so far unable to raise any point worth even considering. The topic is not your forte, obviously and there is no shame in that. But don't mess up this in of itself interesting discussion with questions that clearly betray that you don't even understand their fundamental nature.

What you're basically asking is: "show the validity of physics and substantiate that with a link". You can choose to believe that there are gaps in the understanding of the physical world that may allow for free will and the soul, but if you discuss with others on an intersubjectively commensurable level, you have to consider physics in your argumentation. Otherwise it's simply rudeness.

[Cookiegod]

How about you tell us what's my nonstandard definition of intelligence?

lol are you now going to hide behind the fact that you kept running every time I asked you to elaborate on your definition?

But we've been over this so I can just quote you and me and the dictionaries

A calculator knows what to do given the parameters and functions installed in it. In the most strict sense it has an artificial intelligence. It's just at a very basic level. Then you have a car that can drive itself. It has a numerous number of inputs coming from multiple sensors in real time that checks a high number of parameters executing a high number of functions. You could consider them having a medium level AI that doesn't have the capability to learn (though there are some projects that aim just that). We are also capable of creating AI that can find and implement new rules into itself; finding patterns in the chaos and associating those patterns with responses. At the time we limit those AIs to simple functions. However, if you let an AI, as babies are, be able to alter its existing rules you create endless possibilities. In time, it can learn about its own existence and start creating new rules revolving around that which would amount to sentience. Learning self preservation it would create stricter rules to defend itself. So, AI is not just training to predict outcome y based on input x. There are already AIs that predict outcomes that have not been defined before. They look at a chaotic data and create their own parameters. y is not defined. Yet, y1, y2, y3 and so on are created based on the observations of the AI. Its right out of the Person of Interest but DARPA does have a real project on it, called KAIROS. The idea is to look at all the data available and find connections that we can not see. Now, you may say that in simple terms the program works to find similar items. Sure, you can hardcode it like that but it is also possible to, as KAIROS aims to to a degree, apply machine learning and let the AI figure out its own parameters and rules for what is similar and what is not. We set the threshold at nature, not complexity. Hence, an abacus does not cut it. Intelligence being a spectrum doesn't really add arbitrariness as there is no requirement to have a zero point. It's all relative. Sort of like the electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, there is an absence of electromagnetic wave that we could use as a zero but it's not the kind of zero point that we are talking about here. People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence. The definitions I use are the ones existing in the dictionaries. I have been asking yours to see how it differs from those. Intelligence does not start at zero, it is not simply a few bits of processing, and if you go that spectrum route, you have no grounds whatsoever to not declare an abacus to be intelligent. Common definitions of intelligence are stuff like: human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment. Much of the excitement among investigators in the field of intelligence derives from their attempts to determine exactly what intelligence is. Different investigators have emphasized different aspects of intelligence in their definitions. For example, in a 1921 symposium the American psychologists Lewis Terman and Edward L. Thorndike differed over the definition of intelligence, Terman stressing the ability to think abstractly and Thorndike emphasizing learning and the ability to give good responses to questions. More recently, however, psychologists have generally agreed that adaptation to the environment is the key to understanding both what intelligence is and what it does. Such adaptation may occur in a variety of settings: a student in school learns the material he needs to know in order to do well in a course; a physician treating a patient with unfamiliar symptoms learns about the underlying disease; or an artist reworks a painting to convey a more coherent impression. For the most part, adaptation involves making a change in oneself in order to cope more effectively with the environment, but it can also mean changing the environment or finding an entirely new one. Effective adaptation draws upon a number of cognitive processes, such as perception, learning, memory, reasoning, and problem solving. The main emphasis in a definition of intelligence, then, is that it is not a cognitive or mental process per se but rather a selective combination of these processes that is purposively directed toward effective adaptation. Thus, the physician who learns about a new disease adapts by perceiving material on the disease in medical literature, learning what the material contains, remembering the crucial aspects that are needed to treat the patient, and then utilizing reason to solve the problem of applying the information to the needs of the patient. Intelligence, in total, has come to be regarded not as a single ability but as an effective drawing together of many abilities. This has not always been obvious to investigators of the subject, however; indeed, much of the history of the field revolves around arguments regarding the nature and abilities that constitute intelligence. artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience. Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. intelligence noun in·​tel·​li·​gence | \ in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s \ Definition of intelligence 1a(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests) 3 : the act of understanding : comprehension There's absolutely no cogent argument I can see, nor have seen you made, that'd exclude abaci while simultaneously include the most primitive setup of a few AND+XOR gates. Simply put, there are a number of definitions of intelligence adressing slightly different things. To bring back the cake allegory, some define it as a strawberry cake, some as a banana cake, and some as as a Schwarzwälder Kirsch. Your definition of a few grains of flour come nowhere near any of these definitions. A few logic gates do not give the capacity to fulfill any of the criteria associated with intelligence, and not only does it lack in scale, you do not include all the ingredients necessary for it. Simple as that. People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence. Absolutely no one here was arguing intelligence in the sense of IQ tests, so please don't argue as if we did. Instead, how about you kindly argue in good faith. Provide us with your definition of intelligence that isn't just a few tidbits thrown here and there to attempt and avoid any scrutiny. Provide cogent arguments for why you consider it to be so. When someone then presents you with a conundrum, such as how on earth an abacus doesn't fulfill your definition, instead of saying "nuh uh", provide a cogent explanation as to why it does not.

notice that last bit, where I asked you to argue in good faith:

Instead, how about you kindly argue in good faith. Provide us with your definition of intelligence that isn't just a few tidbits thrown here and there to attempt and avoid any scrutiny. Provide cogent arguments for why you consider it to be so. When someone then presents you with a conundrum, such as how on earth an abacus doesn't fulfill your definition, instead of saying "nuh uh", provide a cogent explanation as to why it does not.

I asked you this repeatedly, since this is at the very core of your argument; my posts getting increasingly annoyed. Did you do even once do that? Nah. Instead you're gaslighting now.

As another example, let's take just the very latest post. You made a claim. I gave you two sentences not written by me and asked you how you understand "in its function" there:

Did you do that? Nah. It clearly shows that even when you argue semantics instead of the point made because you have nothing to argue with against the point, you fail to do it correctly.

I could also ask you now where I supposedly said:

"ok, its not nondeterministic but based on our capabilities we can only perceive it to be nondeterministic."

Would you answer that? In fact I implicitly already asked you that, so we know the answer: Nah. Because the fact is that not only have I never argued that, I explicitly, unequivocally and unambiguously argued against it repeatedly when Muizer argued that.

So where does that leave us?
>One of us has been able to provide, amongst a plethora of other things, dictionary examples. One of us has argued the entire range of sentience, one of us has shown a clear understanding and good knowledge of calculators, logic gates, machine learning + AI, programming, and signal processing.
>The other claims to follow "the definition common in dictionaries", yet has nothing to say when this is unambiguously proven to be false, remains purposefully vague even where it's at the core of his argument to try and avoid falsifiability, refuses to back down from untenable arguments, refuses to engage any arguments that show his claims to be untenable, generally makes claims that strongly indicate that he has no background in STEM and likely has never programmed even a hello world, gaslights, refuses to engage the arguments that debunk his claims even when faced with repeated requests, argues semantics instead of the point because he has nothing to argue against the point with, but fails to even do that. To top it all off, after constantly and habitually evading not only any counter argument, but also any request to clarify his own claims, he has the gall to ask the other to "back up" a claim the other not only never made, but repeatedly and unambiguously argued against.

[swabian]

Actually they don't, and this not something new, a simple google search will bring results from last year and from many years ago. The electric impulses in the neurons can sometimes misfire or trigger other neurons. Moreover the result is altered by an ever-changing mix of chemicals.

If the brain was deterministic learning would be impossible and there would be no such things as randomly remembering something, lapsus, deja-vu, phantom sounds, phantom limbs, etc.

You are presenting this as if it was based on some research. This could not be more false or more absurd. Sorry, there are so many falsities and misconceptions at work, it's really a worthless waste of space in this discussion.

[PointOfViewGun]

So where does that leave us?

It leaves us at your failure to substantiate a simple query you made a statement over and instead provided your contradictory statement regarding it (referring to my nonstandard definition of intelligence earlier only to come back with saying that I never gave you a definition). That's where we're at.

[Cookiegod]

It leaves us at your failure to substantiate a simple query you made a statement over and instead provided your contradictory statement regarding it (referring to my nonstandard definition of intelligence earlier only to come back with saying that I never gave you a definition). That's where we're at.

I have you covered:

A calculator knows what to do given the parameters and functions installed in it. In the most strict sense it has an artificial intelligence. It's just at a very basic level. Then you have a car that can drive itself. It has a numerous number of inputs coming from multiple sensors in real time that checks a high number of parameters executing a high number of functions. You could consider them having a medium level AI that doesn't have the capability to learn (though there are some projects that aim just that). We are also capable of creating AI that can find and implement new rules into itself; finding patterns in the chaos and associating those patterns with responses. At the time we limit those AIs to simple functions. However, if you let an AI, as babies are, be able to alter its existing rules you create endless possibilities. In time, it can learn about its own existence and start creating new rules revolving around that which would amount to sentience. Learning self preservation it would create stricter rules to defend itself.

So, AI is not just training to predict outcome y based on input x. There are already AIs that predict outcomes that have not been defined before. They look at a chaotic data and create their own parameters. y is not defined. Yet, y1, y2, y3 and so on are created based on the observations of the AI. Its right out of the Person of Interest but DARPA does have a real project on it, called KAIROS. The idea is to look at all the data available and find connections that we can not see. Now, you may say that in simple terms the program works to find similar items. Sure, you can hardcode it like that but it is also possible to, as KAIROS aims to to a degree, apply machine learning and let the AI figure out its own parameters and rules for what is similar and what is not.

We set the threshold at nature, not complexity. Hence, an abacus does not cut it. Intelligence being a spectrum doesn't really add arbitrariness as there is no requirement to have a zero point. It's all relative. Sort of like the electromagnetic spectrum. Sure, there is an absence of electromagnetic wave that we could use as a zero but it's not the kind of zero point that we are talking about here.

People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence.

The definitions I use are the ones existing in the dictionaries. I have been asking yours to see how it differs from those.

Intelligence does not start at zero, it is not simply a few bits of processing, and if you go that spectrum route, you have no grounds whatsoever to not declare an abacus to be intelligent.

Common definitions of intelligence are stuff like:

human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.

Much of the excitement among investigators in the field of intelligence derives from their attempts to determine exactly what intelligence is. Different investigators have emphasized different aspects of intelligence in their definitions. For example, in a 1921 symposium the American psychologists Lewis Terman and Edward L. Thorndike differed over the definition of intelligence, Terman stressing the ability to think abstractly and Thorndike emphasizing learning and the ability to give good responses to questions. More recently, however, psychologists have generally agreed that adaptation to the environment is the key to understanding both what intelligence is and what it does. Such adaptation may occur in a variety of settings: a student in school learns the material he needs to know in order to do well in a course; a physician treating a patient with unfamiliar symptoms learns about the underlying disease; or an artist reworks a painting to convey a more coherent impression. For the most part, adaptation involves making a change in oneself in order to cope more effectively with the environment, but it can also mean changing the environment or finding an entirely new one.

Effective adaptation draws upon a number of cognitive processes, such as perception, learning, memory, reasoning, and problem solving. The main emphasis in a definition of intelligence, then, is that it is not a cognitive or mental process per se but rather a selective combination of these processes that is purposively directed toward effective adaptation. Thus, the physician who learns about a new disease adapts by perceiving material on the disease in medical literature, learning what the material contains, remembering the crucial aspects that are needed to treat the patient, and then utilizing reason to solve the problem of applying the information to the needs of the patient. Intelligence, in total, has come to be regarded not as a single ability but as an effective drawing together of many abilities. This has not always been obvious to investigators of the subject, however; indeed, much of the history of the field revolves around arguments regarding the nature and abilities that constitute intelligence.

artificial intelligence (AI), the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience.

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

intelligence noun
in·​tel·​li·​gence | \ in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s
\
Definition of intelligence

1a(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason also : the skilled use of reason
(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
3 : the act of understanding : comprehension

There's absolutely no cogent argument I can see, nor have seen you made, that'd exclude abaci while simultaneously include the most primitive setup of a few AND+XOR gates. Simply put, there are a number of definitions of intelligence adressing slightly different things.
To bring back the cake allegory, some define it as a strawberry cake, some as a banana cake, and some as as a Schwarzwälder Kirsch. Your definition of a few grains of flour come nowhere near any of these definitions. A few logic gates do not give the capacity to fulfill any of the criteria associated with intelligence, and not only does it lack in scale, you do not include all the ingredients necessary for it. Simple as that.

People need to realize that the every day use of the term "intelligent" is a transformed one. We only call people intelligent if they exceed a certain level of intelligence.

Absolutely no one here was arguing intelligence in the sense of IQ tests, so please don't argue as if we did. Instead, how about you kindly argue in good faith. Provide us with your definition of intelligence that isn't just a few tidbits thrown here and there to attempt and avoid any scrutiny. Provide cogent arguments for why you consider it to be so. When someone then presents you with a conundrum, such as how on earth an abacus doesn't fulfill your definition, instead of saying "nuh uh", provide a cogent explanation as to why it does not.

>You have claimed to use "the definition that are in the dictionaries". An obvious lie, since you obviously didn't know that there isn't just one definition, but several.
>You refused to elaborate on your definition.
>The little you did provide (calculators being intelligent according to you) was unambiguously proven to be false, since it is contradicted by ALL common definitions in the dictionaries.

[swabian]

There is no such a scientific item called 'functional non-determinism'. You simply made that up and now you expect us to work with your terminology.

The brain is a macroscopic object and therefore physically deterministic. The implication is that it is principally reproducible and certainly by approximation through artificial means. The biological substance it consists of is of no fundamentally different nature than any other arrangement of chemical elements.

If you would accept that as a scientific fact for a moment (which it is), what would then be your position on the possibility to create an artificial brain that not only posesses intelligence, but also a consciousness (or 'sentience')?

[PointOfViewGun]

>You have claimed to use "the definition that are in the dictionaries". An obvious lie, since you obviously didn't know that there isn't just one definition, but several.
>You refused to elaborate on your definition.
>The little you did provide (calculators being intelligent according to you) was unambiguously proven to be false, since it is contradicted by ALL common definitions in the dictionaries.

Beyond the fact that I stated I was using definitions based on dictionaries, and that the term "intelligence" describes a spectrum, and that in every day use the term "intelligent" is used to describe people surpassing a certain level of intelligence, and so on, I expressed quite a lot about it and those statements have been quite consistent with the said definitions in the dictionaries. Your refusal to respond to the content put forward and sole interest in throwing insults merely solidifies the validity of my position.

[Cookiegod]

Beyond the fact that I stated I was using definitions based on dictionaries, and that the term "intelligence" describes a spectrum, and that in every day use the term "intelligent" is used to describe people surpassing a certain level of intelligence, and so on, I expressed quite a lot about it and those statements have been quite consistent with the said definitions in the dictionaries. Your refusal to respond to the content put forward and sole interest in throwing insults merely solidifies the validity of my position.

The fact that you're using a nonstandard definition is proven by the fact that you're claiming that calculators are intelligent. In spite of your bad faith attempt at evading any falsifiability of your hypothesis, by going so far as to refuse to specify what exactly you're claiming, the preciously little you gave is very definitely not part of any common definition of intelligence. I proved this unambiguously by providing you with several quotes from several dictionary entries and wikipedia articles. You have failed to produce even one, in spite of frequent requests and in spite of your obviously false claim to have such.

There is no such a scientific item called 'functional non-determinism'.

And yet it's a very common descriptor even amongst neuroscientists.

You simply made that up and now you expect us to work with your terminology.

Nope, I didn't make it up.

The brain is a macroscopic object and therefore physically deterministic. The implication is that it is principally reproducible

Back to you arguing quantum physics and "trillions of universe ages" when the human has a lifespan of ~100 years, during which the brain is constantly changing.

and certainly by approximation through artificial means.

Nope, for all the multitude of reasons I have given, all of which remain entirely unadressed.

The biological substance it consists of is of no fundamentally different nature than any other arrangement of chemical elements.

Back to you arguing a strawman instead of the point made.

If you would accept that as a scientific fact for a moment (which it is),

Here's you pretending that I argued against the brain being made of atoms, which I never did.

what would then be your position on the possibility to create an artificial brain that not only posesses intelligence, but also a consciousness (or 'sentience')?

Hmmmmmmmm... Let me think, I think I have answered that one already many, many times...

This is me in post #13:

By the way, if you're taking art as a baseline for sentience, you again have two options: Either a) you do so simply based on what appears pleasing. In that case we have tons of AI image generators that are dope now that you'd have to consider sentient.
Or b) you have the requirement that what it generates isn't simply matrices with mathematical patterns, and that the AI has to actually understand and appreciate what it is doing. In which case we're squarely back to AI not only being nowhere near sentience, but also our current approach having no clear path leading to it.

Here's me in #74:

I never argued from a metaphysical or magical angle. I always and consistently argued the following points:
1) There's a very significant gap between how AI works and what people think AI is.
2) Even with the approaches specifically designed to emulate human thinking and learning (e.g. ANN), these approaches and the real deal are still miles apart.
3) Sentience entirely depends on the definition one makes. A completely reductionist one was achieved with very early computing and doesn't require what we today call AI. But that's without comprehension, agency, and all of that, and thus not what is commonly understood as such.
Sentience in the non-reductionist sense isn't going to happen just like that on the fly. Here I argued specifically LaMDA, partly because here's where the whole recent discussion originated (along with an earlier equally dumb take by Elon Musk), and partly due to the absence of being provided a more detailed definition of it by you guys making it impossible.
4) There would hardly ever be a use case for creating a specific human like sentience beyond the lulz and the fame. To just do it for the lulz and fame requires an investment that is incongruent with it. Moreover anyone who'd created something with a human like sentience would face a very significant challenge then in proving that the object actually has comprehension and agency, and isn't simply linking words based on statistical likelihood that that answer will be accepted by a tester.
More importantly, a human brain has all the stuff going on in it because it has a huge variety of tasks. There's absolutely no reason to create an AI that isn't specialised on a very limited set of tasks. For an AI like LaMDA, apart the significant limit in input+output parameters, there's absolutely no reason to go any complicated route that would involve creating a... for the lack of a better word... thought pattern that'd resemble human thinking. There's a very simple way for LaMDA to approach things, and that's simply word prediction.
5) I am quite certain that many here in this thread consistently underestimate the complexity of the human body and also have some misconceptions in how it operates. An android would most likely have a top-down command from computer to the rest of it.
Humans and other animals on the other hand are made of organic materials, with the brain simply being one organ there. Said organ is heavily influenced by what is going on in the rest of the body. Many mental issues are correlated with other issues in the rest of the body. Cells, both the human cells as well as the plethora of bacteria, constantly change the body chemistry.
6) Computers are made of usually static connections, out of metals and silicate. The human brain however is malleable, constantly changing, also physically. It is nondeterministic in its function. Computers, on the other hand, are not. The end result will thus always be very, very, very different, and whether an outcome actually can be considered sentience once more would depend on what your definition of sentience is.
As stated since the start, a completely reductionist definition is meaningless. The closer to human and animal AI one would draw the line, the less feasible, necessary and likely it'd simply become. The question isn't simply more data, that's actually something a computer is very, very good at.

#80:

If you squint your eyes enough, you can barely make the case that neuron spikes resemble logic gates somewhat. Barely. But anyone who's got any working knowledge knows that AI works differently from organic intelligence, and that the processing in chips is done very differently from the way it's done in a brain.

#104:

This is where you and I get much closer to consensus. It will always come down to how one defines sentience. It is my belief that the things I associate with sentience, be it in humans or dogs, is very much something that is heavily influenced by the evolutionary history we went through, as well as body chemistry, as well as the fact that we humans remain constantly in flux in a way that a computer cannot, nor has any reason to emulate. For any task I can think of, there's pretty much always a far more straightforward path that any algorithm is almost certainly to stay far away from consciousness.

When I walk the dog, or visit the friends that already have children, it's always very interesting for instance to notice those sudden mood swings which we adults have learned to control much better. Like a kid getting angry, and then after a couple of minutes then completely shifting 180° and being happy again. The moment you look at it from the cellular chemistry angle it becomes something impossible to see. Something triggers the release of e.g. neurotransmitters, kid/dog reacts accordingly, cannot control itself. After a couple of minutes the levels have fallen under a threshold. Kid/dog switches mood instantly again.

The other thing being the random noise which is a very strong element of our brain. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and makes us transmit signals much faster. The brain is a masterpiece of signal processing. But the random noise is there, is a strong element, and our brains have accorded significant flexibility in its function because of it, with a staggering amount of inside and outside factors affecting the result. Our brains do not operate on the assumption that the statistical impossibility of things firing the same way happening twice. Never mind that we do not have "trillions of universe ages" to wait for that to happen. Apart from our lifespan being far shorter than that, our brains are undergoing constant change throughout it.

A computer will always be very different for that simple reason alone.

Never mind that it will never evolve any of the traits we evolved as a social species. There's no reason for an AI to evolve empathy, there's no reason for it to evolve morality, nor will it ever confront mental health issues such as anxiety or existential dread.

As much as Ex Machina and Blade Runner are master pieces which I wholeheartedly enjoy, AI can be trained to emulate human traits, such as LaMDA allegedly pontificating over morality, but it will never actually have them for the very simple reasons that it doesn't need to.

That, and again, the fact that the huge differences in structure and purpose making huge differences in function inevitable.

But all that will never do away with another very human trait, which is to anthropomorphise everything we can. As we have well seen in this thread, but also throughout the history of humanity, we have a strong desire to imagine the human like. But anyone who's able to suppress that desire for a moment and look at the task in a rational manner should maybe look at the movies, literature and art (since we don't have a workable definition of sentience in this thread here) with artificial sentience that inspires us so in a critical light. Look at what specific traits and behaviours we attribute to those robots that make us think: "Yep, that's sentient!" And then think for a second why the algorithm should have developed that function to begin with. For me that's one simple way to burst that bubble.

As well as many other times in this thread, but those examples should be enough. Note that I several times addressed body chemistry. You know, the stuff according to you I argued against existing. Whups.

Now your turn: Did you ever bring up a substantive arguments against any of the quotes of myself I just gave you? If so, where?

[Cookiegod]

You know guys, let's just for fun look at a link provided not by me, but by Adrian:


Ouch. Non-determinism that isn't about quantum theory?! WHAAAAT?! OMG! THAT CANNOT BE!


The hilarity is also that you would have had much more grounds to argue that depending on the definition of non-determinism used, we do functionally non-deterministic programming. Here's just one example paper, the earliest I could find, from 1988:

Or here a more recent one:

Ergo, when I argued that computers generally work deterministic, you could have more successfully/less embarrassingly argued against that based on that and actually remained on topic. Well, not on topic, but adjacent. Heck, even if you knew nothing about it, a simple google search could have helped you out.

The caveat would obviously have been that you would still have had to completely and fervently ignore all context with all might, but as has been proven many times in this thread, that hasn't been particularly difficult.

So...

Wanna rephrase that?

[PointOfViewGun]

It's quite interesting that you chose to present these three screenshots in the vaguest manner possible when you could simply provide the links to the articles. It's also quite clear that you simply typed in "functionally non-deterministic" and picked the ones out of 180 results you could read on Google while ignoring tens of thousands of results for "brain is deterministic" or .

You know guys, let's just for fun look at a link provided not by me, but by Adrian:


Ouch. Non-determinism that isn't about quantum theory?! WHAAAAT?! OMG! THAT CANNOT BE!

This one for example was provided by Sir Adrian as a source for explanation how the brain is not deterministic in his post #117. As I pointed out in my post #126, the Forbes article, based on a Quora entry, provides no reasoning whatsoever and mentions determinism as a passing thought.

The hilarity is also that you would have had much more grounds to argue that depending on the definition of non-determinism used, we do functionally non-deterministic programming. Here's just one example paper, the earliest I could find, from 1988:

Not much to comment on this paper. The age of the article speaks for itself. It doesn't seem to provide any reasoning on its premise either.

Or here a more recent one:

Ergo, when I argued that computers generally work deterministic, you could have more successfully/less embarrassingly argued against that based on that and actually remained on topic. Well, not on topic, but adjacent. Heck, even if you knew nothing about it, a simple google search could have helped you out.

The funny thing about this paper is that in it's preamble it starts with defining what different types of determinisms it looks at. It's one of the rare papers that use such a term. The funny thing about that is that it doesn't use the same definition that you do. You ground your definition of unrepeatable processes based on the same input but the paper bases its definition on same inputs and outputs with respect to an observer. You need to read what you're posting here little bit more carefully. Especially when you have so little to work with on Google.

[Cookiegod]

Oh great, so you have discovered google, and you have realised that non-determinism depends on context. You also realise that non-determinism is a word that is frequent in use enough to, according to you, be used in passing thought. That's progress. Unironically. We have made more headway now than in many pages. So that's one flimsical excuse to avoid facing the argument less. Will the hero accept his calling this time? Will there be debate with actual counterarguments at hand to any of the multitude of issues that were brought before him a great many times? Will the solution to the differences between computing and machine learning on one hand, and the brain on the other be cogently explained? We will see.

You then play on ethos, while very likely having neither a STEM, programming, machine learning, signal processing, or neuroscientific background of your own. Which is interesting, but ok, let's put a pin in that and move on.

A bit more search and you'll find the dictionaries you claim to base your definitions on do not share your view, and that while there are several definitions of intelligence depending on context, absolutely none of the common ones have one a calculator comes even close to.

[Sir Adrian]

You are presenting this as if it was based on some research. This could not be more false or more absurd. Sorry, there are so many falsities and misconceptions at work, it's really a worthless waste of space in this discussion.

"Recent research is not based on research". Ok. How about you just google it and see for yourself.