The Sentient AI Trap

[PointOfViewGun]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.

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. In that sense, quite ironically, a brain is more like the glass accidentally falling from a table, which will fall slightly different every time. In spite of your rejection, the glass is still a great parable for calculators, in that the glass has absolutely no understanding, nor any control over what is happening to it. You can quite literally build gravity powered calculators, and these have the same lack of control or comprehension.

BEHOLD, WATER AND DOMINO AI!

According to the very little provided by you, both of these devices have artificial intelligence. For pretty much every single other person on earth they do not.

There is no objective reasoning I can detect from you that should result in an abacus not having intelligence if a standard calculator does.
The fact that you have a human move the pieces around in an abacus matters not in the slightest. They are moved around based on a set of rules, and any skilled user who's had the same education will use it according to the same set of rules. The calculations done by an abacus are fully reproducible. You can automate it, and in fact that has already been done, like this Japanese one from the start of the 20th century:

Given that this device fulfills the rather arbitrary condition you decided to randomly add (instead of giving us your comprehensible, falsifiable definition of artificial "intelligence" or sentience), there's no arguing that this device should be considered intelligent by your metric. But how come some cogs make this thing intelligent, while a simple hand moving it according to the same rules would disqualify it?
Remind me again what your definition of sentience is? We are still waiting to be impressed.

There is an argument for brains working deterministically as well. We don't know for sure if they don't. A brain merely has hell of a lot more processes and variables to create differing outcomes for the same tasks compared to a calculator. So, no. A brain is not more like a glass falling. No matter how you try to make the falling glass analogy one with merit it just comes across as quite the stretch. With the falling glass analogy we don't have any artificial feature. The mechanism of it falling is part of the nature while the mechanism of a calculator is man made, hence artificial.

The two examples you give with water usage and dominos can be indeed described as AIs. Just in the very crude form. You seem to be thinking that just because something looks very basic it doesn't mean that it has no intelligence. It's not a threshold measurement. Its a spectrum. I understand that you needed to ignore what I said about abacuses completely to keep arguing against me but it's not exactly an effective way to argue. At least, Sir Adrian tried to address what I said. I would recommend you to follow his example in that specific regard.

How does a mechanism with an I/O system differ from a tool that has no mechanism? The answer is in the question itself.

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

[Cookiegod]

There is an argument for brains working deterministically as well. We don't know for sure if they don't. A brain merely has hell of a lot more processes and variables to create differing outcomes for the same tasks compared to a calculator. So, no. A brain is not more like a glass falling. No matter how you try to make the falling glass analogy one with merit it just comes across as quite the stretch.

I'm gonna go ahead and simply say no.

With the falling glass analogy we don't have any artificial feature. The mechanism of it falling is part of the nature while the mechanism of a calculator is man made, hence artificial.

You do realise humanity did not invent the laws of electricity, just like gravity they've been around since the big bang. How do you distinguish between a glass being knocked from your kitchen counter, with its fall due to gravitational acceleration no longer being met by an upward directed force from a hard surface, and a bunch of dominoes falling down the same route again and again and again?

Humans on the other hand have so many pathways and will never use the same ones twice. Quite ironically one way to do calculations is to imagine an abacus in your head and imagining pushing the beads around. But even if you take e.g. that approach consistently, you will not imagine the exact same thing twice. Quite simply, just because a cake usually contains some flour, does not mean that a few grains of flour constitute a primitive cake. Your definition of a handful of logic gates as intelligence is shakey for the very same reason.

The two examples you give with water usage and dominos can be indeed described as AIs. Just in the very crude form. You seem to be thinking that just because something looks very basic it doesn't mean that it has no intelligence. It's not a threshold measurement. Its a spectrum. I understand that you needed to ignore what I said about abacuses completely to keep arguing against me but it's not exactly an effective way to argue. At least, Sir Adrian tried to address what I said. I would recommend you to follow his example in that specific regard.

It does not have an intelligence, for the simple reason that just like with the analogous glass there's no comprehension and no control involved.

Obviously the real issue here is your continued refusal to supply us with a cogent definition of intelligence, and no:

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

Heh, no, from the very little of your definition you've been sharing it's already been patently and unambiguously at odds with any dictionaries I'd be using. If you disagree, then supply us with whichever dictionary definition you've been using.

How does a mechanism with an I/O system differ from a tool that has no mechanism? The answer is in the question itself.

>Claims that an abacus has no mechanism after being shown an automated abacus.


How do you utilise the abacus without defining an input and obtaining the output? I'm curious. How would you utilise the mechanical abacus I showed to you without first defining the calculation you want made? How is that not an input. How do you obtain a result if there's not an output?

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm gonna go ahead and simply say no.

You do realise humanity did not invent the laws of electricity, just like gravity they've been around since the big bang. How do you distinguish between a glass being knocked from your kitchen counter, with its fall due to gravitational acceleration no longer being met by an upward directed force from a hard surface, and a bunch of dominoes falling down the same route again and again and again?

Humans on the other hand have so many pathways and will never use the same ones twice. Quite ironically one way to do calculations is to imagine an abacus in your head and imagining pushing the beads around. But even if you take e.g. that approach consistently, you will not imagine the exact same thing twice. Quite simply, just because a cake usually contains some flour, does not mean that a few grains of flour constitute a primitive cake. Your definition of a handful of logic gates as intelligence is shakey for the very same reason.

It does not have an intelligence, for the simple reason that just like with the analogous glass there's no comprehension and no control involved.

Obviously the real issue here is your continued refusal to supply us with a cogent definition of intelligence, and no:
Heh, no, from the very little of your definition you've been sharing it's already been patently and unambiguously at odds with any dictionaries I'd be using. If you disagree, then supply us with whichever dictionary definition you've been using.

>Claims that an abacus has no mechanism after being shown an automated abacus.

How do you utilise the abacus without defining an input and obtaining the output? I'm curious. How would you utilise the mechanical abacus I showed to you without first defining the calculation you want made? How is that not an input. How do you obtain a result if there's not an output?

You can only go so far with word play... I see a difference between a randomly falling glass and a series of dominos precisely positioned by humans to create different falling patterns. You don't. The artificial nature alone of the latter one is enough to distinguish between them. Pretty much all the analogies you're alluding to are obtuse ones that have no real connection. Thats why you keep throwing them as each one fails worse than the other. A few random grains of flours wouldn't be considered a cake but one that is baked with only a few ingredients even in small sizes would be. A bad one but still one. I also note the irony of you starting to ask for my definitions when you already deflected from providing yours. Clearly, you don't want to tie yourself to a particular set of parameters... An abacus has no mechanism. It merely helps us visualize the calculation. We make the calculation, not the abacus. A Jido-Soroban, an automated abacus, does. It has a mechanism to make the calculation. They are quite different. It's same as comparing an abacus with an abacus software.

[Cookiegod]

You can only go so far with word play... I see a difference between a randomly falling glass and a series of dominos precisely positioned by humans to create different falling patterns. You don't. The artificial nature alone of the latter one is enough to distinguish between them. Pretty much all the analogies you're alluding to are obtuse ones that have no real connection.

Your claim of "no real connection" stems from the absense of an actual counterargument on your part, along with a lack of clarity of what your claim is to begin with.

Thats why you keep throwing them as each one fails worse than the other. A few random grains of flours wouldn't be considered a cake but one that is baked with only a few ingredients even in small sizes would be. A bad one but still one.

And that's quite the crux of the issue, innit? A calculator does not have the same ingredients as a brain. Nor do any common definitions of intelligence consider it to check anywhere near enough boxes to be considered "intelligent". It quite simply is not.

I also note the irony of you starting to ask for my definitions when you already deflected from providing yours. Clearly, you don't want to tie yourself to a particular set of parameters...

There's no incongruency on my part. I have in several posts of mine discussed two different definitions of sentience, the reductionist as well as a more sophisticated one, and gone into detail with the issues in either. I know how you operate however, and I know that you'll continue to run from it for as long as you can. You are afraid of providing any definition because 1) it requires a modicum of thought put into it, and 2) you know fully well that it will make your already precarious position fully untenable.

So you do the scared thing where you hide in ambiguity and throw some arbitrary tidbits out here and there to try and avoid any scrutiny and keep your position as far away from any falsifiability as you possibly can. Thing is though that your position even with those tidbits does not hold up, as we saw with the claim of yours that abaci somehow perform without inputs and without providing any output.

You made the claim repeatedly that you're somehow representing the common definition of intelligence. That statement alone already disqualifies you as being ill informed, since there is not just the one definition of intelligence. Even if you held a common one, you'd still have be able to show which one of them it is.

But you do not hold any of the common definitions, for the same reason as why a handful of grains of flour are not fulfilling any common definition of cake.

An abacus has no mechanism. It merely helps us visualize the calculation. We make the calculation, not the abacus. A Jido-Soroban, an automated abacus, does. It has a mechanism to make the calculation. They are quite different. It's same as comparing an abacus with an abacus software.

A Jido-Sorobran acts according to the exact same rules as the Japanese Abaci it's was built on. Two different users using the same Abacus by the same rules will do the exact same calculation steps, no matter whether they move the pieces by hand or crank a handle and have a mechanism do it for them. So we arrive at your weird idea of intelligence now being the arbitrary distinction between propulsion.

Let's take the domino calculator from before and remove a couple of bricks from it or space them out such that any user would be required to tilt each brick manually along the way. The logic gates would still be the exact same, the architecture would still be the exact same, the only thing that'd change is that instead of the preceding domino falling onto the next one, a human would tilt them one by one. According to the completely arbitrary stand you are taking right now, removing those couple of bricks would change it from being intelligent to nonintelligent and somehow "not artificial". It is an absolutely untenable position you are holding right now, and not one I can imagine you clinging on to without blushing.

So knowing your modus operandi, here's the maximum I'm going to offer you: If you offer me a cogent definition of intelligence and sentience held by you, then I can quote myself and show to you that which you can already read yourself. I will quite likely already have to, since I'm 90% certain you'll tap right into the already presented pitfalls. Your continued refusal of making a clear stand, which quite frankly is the most likely outcome, just like it has been until now, on the other hand will be continued proof of a lack of clarity and argument.

If you do not know what sentience and intelligence is, the inevitable conclusion is that you are completely disqualified to judge whether artificial sentience is achievable or not.

[Cope]

Bear with me here:

If humans are sentient and artificial means made by humans, then when humans make other humans they have achieved the creation of artificial sentience.

[Cookiegod]

I'm not artificial, cope. I'm 100% organic gluten-free dough. Also I invented cheese on toast, so sit down.

[Septentrionalis]

I have some input to share. Just to be sure, I do not consider calculators sentient, and I think no one really suggested that here.

I work in technology and make computers do stuff. That or listening to engineers hasn't prepared me at all to understand what sentience might be, but listening to neuroscientists and philosophers with that kind of academic background to some degree has, both of which I regularly do. To understand artificial intelligence, I have benefited from listening to engineers with that specific specialization but not really others.

If anyone of us actually knows for sure what sentience (or free will) is, please contact those neuroscientists and associated philosophers and explain, because they are quite uncertain and not very confident to posit truths on the subject. It is an on-going speculation but not a debate, because very few can honestly say that they have come across the definitive answer.

The human brain works by directing electric currents in an extremely complicated network of neurons; biological and chemical equivalents of what humans have built for artificial neural networks. And they are trained neural networks; we are all born without the capacity to speak or to form complicated thoughts. Two-year-olds could not log in to a forum and have this discussion. Many believe that the system processes running all the time in our brain are what creates the notion of consciousness in an emergent fashion. And they run regardless of our volition; one can try go on one day without having a single thought. I bet you cannot manage one minute if you try.

The machine grinds data non-stop, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, because consciousness, "sentience", is an emergent result of that complex biochemical machine doing what it has been conditioned to do since the beginning of neural processing early in our evolutionary past. Like someone said, it is a spectrum. When a lizard feels hungry, it activates its hunting behavior. When I feel I should check the news, I reach out to my cell phone. The principle is very likely to be the same, but mine is just seemingly infinitely more complex than that of the lizard.

[Septentrionalis]

Am I sentient but the lizard is not? Or are we both sentient? My personal intuition is that sentience is not necessarily a viable concept, but just an emergent quality within complex enough systems processing data. The lizard may very well just be 1/1,000 or 1/10,000 as sentient as I am, and the whole concept is not binary by nature.

[PointOfViewGun]

Your claim of "no real connection" stems from the absense of an actual counterargument on your part, along with a lack of clarity of what your claim is to begin with.
And that's quite the crux of the issue, innit? A calculator does not have the same ingredients as a brain. Nor do any common definitions of intelligence consider it to check anywhere near enough boxes to be considered "intelligent". It quite simply is not.
There's no incongruency on my part. I have in several posts of mine discussed two different definitions of sentience, the reductionist as well as a more sophisticated one, and gone into detail with the issues in either. I know how you operate however, and I know that you'll continue to run from it for as long as you can. You are afraid of providing any definition because 1) it requires a modicum of thought put into it, and 2) you know fully well that it will make your already precarious position fully untenable.

So you do the scared thing where you hide in ambiguity and throw some arbitrary tidbits out here and there to try and avoid any scrutiny and keep your position as far away from any falsifiability as you possibly can. Thing is though that your position even with those tidbits does not hold up, as we saw with the claim of yours that abaci somehow perform without inputs and without providing any output.

You made the claim repeatedly that you're somehow representing the common definition of intelligence. That statement alone already disqualifies you as being ill informed, since there is not just the one definition of intelligence. Even if you held a common one, you'd still have be able to show which one of them it is.

But you do not hold any of the common definitions, for the same reason as why a handful of grains of flour are not fulfilling any common definition of cake.
A Jido-Sorobran acts according to the exact same rules as the Japanese Abaci it's was built on. Two different users using the same Abacus by the same rules will do the exact same calculation steps, no matter whether they move the pieces by hand or crank a handle and have a mechanism do it for them. So we arrive at your weird idea of intelligence now being the arbitrary distinction between propulsion.

Let's take the domino calculator from before and remove a couple of bricks from it or space them out such that any user would be required to tilt each brick manually along the way. The logic gates would still be the exact same, the architecture would still be the exact same, the only thing that'd change is that instead of the preceding domino falling onto the next one, a human would tilt them one by one. According to the completely arbitrary stand you are taking right now, removing those couple of bricks would change it from being intelligent to nonintelligent and somehow "not artificial". It is an absolutely untenable position you are holding right now, and not one I can imagine you clinging on to without blushing.

So knowing your modus operandi, here's the maximum I'm going to offer you: If you offer me a cogent definition of intelligence and sentience held by you, then I can quote myself and show to you that which you can already read yourself. I will quite likely already have to, since I'm 90% certain you'll tap right into the already presented pitfalls. Your continued refusal of making a clear stand, which quite frankly is the most likely outcome, just like it has been until now, on the other hand will be continued proof of a lack of clarity and argument.

If you do not know what sentience and intelligence is, the inevitable conclusion is that you are completely disqualified to judge whether artificial sentience is achievable or not.

To address the drivel or to not address it. That is the question... The main problem we're facing is that you think in a binary form. It's a rather very religious form of thinking. The idea behind it is that there is either intelligent design or none. No steps in between or no differing levels of intelligence. Hence, you're using the every day use of definition of intelligent interchangeably with intelligence, and you only deem highly intelligent beings as having intelligence when in fact intelligence has one definition that can be applied to a wide spectrum.

I take it you don't exactly grasp the differences between the examples you're producing here as you seem to be unable to address anything I point out about them. Not realizing what you do you're actually describing how intelligent designs work in your example of dominos. You're removing the propagation of events and talking as if that doesn't matter. It quite does. In a being with intelligence information has to propagate. It's quite important.

I see that you finish your post with a monumental projection. If only it wasn't that obvious...

I'm not artificial, cope. I'm 100% organic gluten-free dough. Also I invented cheese on toast, so sit down.

Being an organic being would not exclude you from being artificial. Artificial doesn't mean inorganic. Do not confuse artificial with virtual.

[Cookiegod]

To address the drivel or to not address it. That is the question... The main problem we're facing is that you think in a binary form. It's a rather very religious form of thinking. The idea behind it is that there is either intelligent design or none. No steps in between or no differing levels of intelligence. Hence, you're using the every day use of definition of intelligent interchangeably with intelligence, and you only deem highly intelligent beings as having intelligence when in fact intelligence has one definition that can be applied to a wide spectrum.

I take it you don't exactly grasp the differences between the examples you're producing here as you seem to be unable to address anything I point out about them. Not realizing what you do you're actually describing how intelligent designs work in your example of dominos. You're removing the propagation of events and talking as if that doesn't matter. It quite does. In a being with intelligence information has to propagate. It's quite important.

I see that you finish your post with a monumental projection. If only it wasn't that obvious...




Being an organic being would not exclude you from being artificial. Artificial doesn't mean inorganic. Do not confuse artificial with virtual.

I accept your surrender.

[Sir Adrian]

Bear with me here:

If humans are sentient and artificial means made by humans, then when humans make other humans they have achieved the creation of artificial sentience.

Artificial means not made through natural means. Humans made by humans would still be grown naturally, even clones like Dolly were grown from an egg and sperm. Unless you have a replicator it's not artificial.

[Cope]

Artificial means not made through natural means. Humans made by humans would still be grown naturally, even clones like Dolly were grown from an egg and sperm. Unless you have a replicator it's not artificial.

Another joke debunked.

[Muizer]

I have some input to share. Just to be sure, I do not consider calculators sentient, and I think no one really suggested that here.

I work in technology and make computers do stuff. That or listening to engineers hasn't prepared me at all to understand what sentience might be, but listening to neuroscientists and philosophers with that kind of academic background to some degree has, both of which I regularly do. To understand artificial intelligence, I have benefited from listening to engineers with that specific specialization but not really others.

If anyone of us actually knows for sure what sentience (or free will) is, please contact those neuroscientists and associated philosophers and explain, because they are quite uncertain and not very confident to posit truths on the subject. It is an on-going speculation but not a debate, because very few can honestly say that they have come across the definitive answer.

The human brain works by directing electric currents in an extremely complicated network of neurons; biological and chemical equivalents of what humans have built for artificial neural networks. And they are trained neural networks; we are all born without the capacity to speak or to form complicated thoughts. Two-year-olds could not log in to a forum and have this discussion. Many believe that the system processes running all the time in our brain are what creates the notion of consciousness in an emergent fashion. And they run regardless of our volition; one can try go on one day without having a single thought. I bet you cannot manage one minute if you try.

The machine grinds data non-stop, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, because consciousness, "sentience", is an emergent result of that complex biochemical machine doing what it has been conditioned to do since the beginning of neural processing early in our evolutionary past. Like someone said, it is a spectrum. When a lizard feels hungry, it activates its hunting behavior. When I feel I should check the news, I reach out to my cell phone. The principle is very likely to be the same, but mine is just seemingly infinitely more complex than that of the lizard.

Am I sentient but the lizard is not? Or are we both sentient? My personal intuition is that sentience is not necessarily a viable concept, but just an emergent quality within complex enough systems processing data. The lizard may very well just be 1/1,000 or 1/10,000 as sentient as I am, and the whole concept is not binary by nature.

That is pretty much my view as well. In unless one opts for a metaphysical / magical explanation, it is pretty much axiomatic. And with it, the implication comes that in higher animals 'free will' is part of this emergent experience of a sense of self. There is no actual 'inversion' where the emergent "self" can think and act truly independently from its physical substrate and impose its 'will' on it.

[Cookiegod]

That is pretty much my view as well. In unless one opts for a metaphysical / magical explanation, it is pretty much axiomatic. And with it, the implication comes that in higher animals 'free will' is part of this emergent experience of a sense of self. There is no actual 'inversion' where the emergent "self" can think and act truly independently from its physical substrate and impose its 'will' on it.

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.

What I absolutely expect to come and what is actually already a very significant problem, is AI that is extremely good at emulating humans. All those "not a robot" checks are on borrowed time. Fully automated customer support where it's completely impossible to get hold of a human will become more and more standard. And with humans being the sheep that they are and twitter full of twatters, there's still tons of "debate" on this subject to happen.

[Muizer]

@Cookiegod, for what it's worth, I don't really disagree with anything you said there.

[swabian]

I know it's fascinating and mesmerizing. But we will not be replaced so soon. It's very convenient to think of a machinery as a potential offspring that has all the properties of humans, but none of the weaknesses, like mortality or the capability to suffer as we do. It would be adapted to all climates and there would be no difference in looks. It would not threaten anyone with violence, unless it is enabled and equipped to do so. And it is a pipe dream. It's a projection.

[PointOfViewGun]

How is the human brain non-deterministic? It's really hard to make that suggestion one way or the other when we don't exactly understand how the brain works. Just because the brain considers a large number of variables it doesn't make it non-deterministic.

[Sir Adrian]

Free will is only possible if the brain is non-deterministic.

[swabian]

Free will is only possible if the brain is non-deterministic.

Which is why there is very likely no such thing as free will in the strict sense. If there is a bit of non-determinism, the actual degree of 'freedom' would be very, very limited and also completely devoid of any meaning, because all thinking (rational or irrational - basically every brain functionality) is a highly deterministic process. The brain is a highly organized, extremely complex object. Everything 'random' in it is a malfunction and there is no willful decision making based on malfunctioning. Just as there is no conscious thought and decisionmaking in an epileptic seizure.

But there is no reason in overthinking that topic too much, because nothing changes once the realiziation of this is made. We cannot escape the illusion of non-deterministic free will. It's just one of these things that are strangely important when it comes to truthfulness and logic, but are completely devoid of any practical consequence. We still have to work with the concept of personal responsibility as an ethical guidance.

All it basically means is that the human brain is a physical object and not an exception to the general understanding of physical reality. How is this shocking or surprising? To me it really isn't.

[Cookiegod]

Free will is only possible if the brain is non-deterministic.

Clarification: I wasn't arguing free will, that's an entirely different can of worms.

How is the human brain non-deterministic? It's really hard to make that suggestion one way or the other when we don't exactly understand how the brain works. Just because the brain considers a large number of variables it doesn't make it non-deterministic.

Because it's a fact. E.g. Kunihiko Kaneko, "From globally coupled maps to complex-systems biology", Chaos 25, 097608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4916925

Which is why statements like these are wrong:

You, as a human being, is not different from a calculator, in principle. A calculator has its inputs, rules and output mechanism. Same as you. You merely differ in complexity.

Oh, yes you do. You have a lot of programming. I could describe you with the same kind of obtuse use of terminalogy to make it appear as if you are as simple as a calculator. I'm not as we both know better. Your senses input data into your brain which contains a lot of programming that comes from genes and conditioning then which gets translated to output in the type of movement and sound. Just because you are a much more complex calculator doesn't mean you are not subject to the same mechanisms.

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.