Funny things AI might do in the future

Hold on, first off, show me an "artificial brain." We do not have the technology to create a human brain or even a cell in any form (though we got cell membranes! Woo) Put down your sci-fi books and come back to the real world. Lower, lower, should start to feel the ground with your feet now and... Alright.

Second, do you realize the difference between atoms/elements and compounds? Compounds are amazing things that adopt different properties than their parent-parts have seperately and do different things. I don't always agree with Quast, but that car engine example was literally perfect.

Also, "self awareness means awareness of self..." hey now, try not to 1-up ol' Webster, hehe.

Put a dog in a cage, watch it; yeah, actually pay attention to its behavior, and tell me it's unaware of its "self," location, and situation.

It's aware of its situation for the purposes of survival, that doesn't mean the dog will start to sit there philosophizing its place in the universe.

Some of the mentally handicapped don't sit there and philosophize their place in the universe; does that mean they don't have self-awareness?

It's not simply a matter of whether they will, it's a matter of whether they can. A dog doesn't think about such things, it simply thinks about survival at all costs. This is why, if you bring ants away from the Queen into an ant farm, they carry on as if she was still there because it's not the Queen ordering them to dig tunnels, it's their own instincts.

MetroidJunkie said:

I know that literally every single element we've ever discovered has shown no capacity for self awareness and we've yet to find any element in any human brain that is capable of self awareness. If it exists, wouldn't it easily be discovered in a dead person's brain?

I'm confused here, who is saying the brain is comprised of just one element with no processes involved in its existence? You do realize that the brain is made up of many chemicals, undergoing metabolic processes. I would think these processes, as complex as they are, create what we call "self-awareness". We have literally no reason to think otherwise.

The fact that we're able to think one way or the other completely goes against it because chemical reactions can't make decisions, nor can AI Code. it can't decide against itself, yet we can. We can even choose to do things that run counter to our own survival, hence why a lot of teenagers do stupidly reckless things.

MetroidJunkie said:

It's not simply a matter of whether they will, it's a matter of whether they can. A dog doesn't think about such things, it simply thinks about survival at all costs. This is why, if you bring ants away from the Queen into an ant farm, they carry on as if she was still there because it's not the Queen ordering them to dig tunnels, it's their own instincts.

Without language, unfortunately dogs cannot tell us that they view the world simply and that their obvious place in the universe is in their pack. Of course I'm being a slight bit facetious here, but you get the point. Being not as developed mentally, we cannot expect them to think about it on the same level as we do. This was the parallel to the mentally handicapped; the difference is that the mentally handicapped do have human brains, capable of understanding and expressing human language. But just because they don't think about it the same as we do, or at all, doesn't mean they are not self-aware.

And re-reading that, triple negative; my old English teachers would be proud.

MetroidJunkie said:

The fact that we're able to think one way or the other completely goes against it because chemical reactions can't make decisions, nor can AI Code.

How do you know that? Give me one reason why I should believe that the mind is more than chemicals. You need to make a better argument than "I just feel like chemicals don't make what we call decisions." It really sounds like you just don't like the implications.
Also, notice what I said. "Make what we call decisions."

If what you're saying was true then you couldn't very well blame me for taking my position since my thoughts are just reactions, not voluntary thoughts. If we're just chemical reactions, then we can't be held responsible for our actions because our brains decided for us without our conscious impact. You're right, I don't like the implications of that because they're flat out wrong, we're in charge of our own actions, something that flat out opposes this idea that we're just chemical reactions. If your defense in court was that you didn't choose to kill that person, electrical impulses chose for you, how solid of a defense do you honestly think that would be?

MetroidJunkie said:

If what you're saying was true then you couldn't very well blame me for taking my position since my thoughts are just reactions, not voluntary thoughts. If we're just chemical reactions, then we can't be held responsible for our actions because our brains decided for us without our conscious impact. You're right, I don't like the implications of that because they're flat out wrong, we're in charge of our own actions, something that flat out opposes this idea that we're just chemical reactions.

Ugh that old, tired argument? First,we are our brains, second yes, we can still hold each other accountable because nothing would be different if our minds weren't more than chemicals. Third its not wrong. You just gave me an appeal to consequences. I'd go into more depth here, but you can reread my responses to you on the religion thread. But I will ask again. Without resorting to logical fallacies, give me one reason why I should believe the mind is more than chemicals

That's hard to do when you've decided that all of my arguments fall under the category of Logical Fallacies. I can only give you an analogy. If you choose what to wear, you're making a conscious choice. When you open a soda can and it fizzes, it didn't fizz because some compound in the soda made the conscious decision to fizz.

MetroidJunkie said:

That's hard to do when you've decided that all of my arguments fall under the category of Logical Fallacies. I can only give you an analogy. If you choose what to wear, you're making a conscious choice. When you open a soda can and it fizzes, it didn't fizz because some compound in the soda made the conscious decision to fizz.

I didn't decide that they were logical fallacies, they are.
The analogy doesn't work because they aren't the same. The human brain is so much more complex than a soda that it's baffling why you feel like they can be compared in the same way. A human brain has what we call consciousness, while a soda doesn't. Therefore, a brain is capable of making conscious decisions, while a soda is incapable. But maybe I just don't see it. Please explain why they are analogous.

So now decision making defines self-awareness?

Animals are more than capable of making decisions and problem solving, as well as forgoing survival instincts during times of grief.

Decision making is a consequence of self awareness because it means you're aware of yourself apart from merely survivalist instincts. You can make determinations and aren't ruled by what your brain determined would be the most logical answer. sudo, please explain why the human brain has consciousness and the soda doesn't if they're both virtually the same, elements reacting on a chemical level and literally nothing else? Unless the brain has some kind of super conscious capable system of elements we've never discovered.

The same reason the car engine can run a car while a slab of steel doesn't, one is actually arranged into a functioning system while the other is trash.

An ai reacharound!

MetroidJunkie said:

please explain why the human brain has consciousness and the soda doesn't if they're both virtually the same, elements reacting on a chemical level and literally nothing else?

Some computer programs (1) output the text "Hello world!" and do nothing more. Other computer programs (2) accept input, process it by an equation, and generate a corresponding output. Other computer programs (3) run in a loop, in which they constantly accept input, process it by an equation, generate a corresponding output, and part of this output goes to the input of the next iteration of the loop. All 3 programs, when running, are just physical processes - electricity that flows through conductors and transistors. But program (1) has no feedback, while program (2) has feedback, whereas program (3) has self-feedback. Program of type (1) will obviously never have self-awareness, no matter how complex it is - because it lacks an important aspect of self-awareness, which is self-feedback. Program of type (3) has it, but we know that some programs of type (3) do not have self-awareness - but it might be just because they (the ones we observed yet) are too simple and not designed in a specific way that allows self-awareness. If you prove that any program of type (1) could never have self-awareness, and if you also prove that some programs of type (3) do not have self-awareness, these propositions by themselves do NOT lead to a conclusion that any program of type (3) could never have self-awareness.

And yet, no program even of type 3 can make decisions on its own accord. It can only ever do what it's been programmed to do and cannot go outside the bounds of that. It gives no thoughts to its own self, it only follows the instructions laid out before it.

scifista42 said:

and if you also prove that some programs of type (3) do not have self-awareness, these propositions by themselves do NOT lead to a conclusion that any program of type (3) could never have self-awareness.

So you're putting your trust into something that's never happened and we have no proof will ever happen. That's quite a lot of faith you have there.

That's like a guy from 1810 arguing that cars not currently existing is proof that cars can never exist. Besides, you seem more than willing to believe in magic soul brain nonmaterials.

"Making a decision" might well be defined as "trying to choose the best option", and never any other than the "best" one. The point is that "best" is determined by what possibilities there are to choose from, what your momentary goal is, and what "method of thinking" (basically, taking the possibilities and momentary goal as inputs, processing them somehow, and deterministically outputting the decision) you use. These are all variables (even the "method of thinking" is, as there may be multiple ones, in fact infinitely many ones). The values of these variables may be different each time you make a decision. They may change due to "random" or predictable (but always physical) effects, or as a result of a previously made decision. Either way, when the moment of "making a decision" comes, these variables will have specific values, and if it was possible to know the values, it would also be possible to predict what would be the choice - provided there weren't any other ("random" or predictable, but always physical) effects that interferred with the run of the method of thinking before it outputted the decision. If there were such effects, and if they were predictable, it would be possible to predict the choice anyway. Such "making a decision" would be purely physical. You can describe a computer's process of "making decisions" this way. Why not describe a brain's process of "making decisions" this way too?

Here's another idea. What if a pure AI developed the desire for worship? ie. worshipping mankind or another theoretical god or path, simply by its own accord and freedom of self-expression.

Although I don't like religion personally, many intelligent people are Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist etc. people of all faiths. They all have the right to believe whatever they want to believe and so they should. But many proponents of technology like to use the example of robotics and machinery as evidence against faith.

Since the consensus for atheists is that technology would 'cure' the religious, what if an AI became pious and sacrificial? What if intelligent robots started worshipping? Would the atheists allow it? Or would they turn and blame them for having beliefs?

deadwolves said:

Would the atheists allow it? Or would they turn and blame them for having beliefs?

Depends how positively or negatively the AI's beliefs would affect their efficiency at serving the purpose for which they were made, respectively how positively or negatively they would affect people / other AIs / the world around them.

MetroidJunkie said:

please explain why the human brain has consciousness and the soda doesn't if they're both virtually the same, elements reacting on a chemical level and literally nothing else?

They aren't the same though. One is carbon dioxide outgassing in aromatic sugar water and the other is a collection of tens of billions of already elaborate cells called neurons that constantly interact with one another with complex electro-chemical signals.

It stand to reason that we consider consiousness and self-awareness to be a consequence of our rather large and complex brain structures. But we also see this in other creatures we consider intelligent, they too have large brains. Is an elephant not self-aware? Honestly, how is any creature with a brain and sensory organs not aware of its existence in whatever sense that may be? What is the purpose of a large brain if not for analyzing input?

I'm under an impression that MetroidJunkie separates consciousness and self-awareness, and for some reason, he gives greater importance to self-awareness ("the awareness of self", the ability of "philosophizing its place in the universe") rather than consciousness (the experience you have all the time while you are conscious, whether you are thinking on a philosophical level or doing a mundane activity that may or may not be caused by your instincts).

Fair enough, I guess I have confused the terms. Consciousness could in theory be possible for AI programs (In the sense that they can perceive the world around them and respond in like) but the ability to be self aware outside of their own programming is pretty much impossible as far as I'm concerned.

I thought it was actually consciousness (not just response to input, but the sensation YOU are experiencing RIGHT NOW) that's the greater deal in terms of hypothetical "non-physical materials", and self-awareness was just a slightly improved quality of such.

It's a tricky subject but I still very much doubt that it's entirely physical, especially when Science itself couldn't exist without concepts that cannot be proven by physical materials. Thus, if you take non-physical completely out of the equation, Science itself crumbles.

MetroidJunkie said:

but the ability to be self aware outside of their own programming

As I've tried to explain in this post, it wouldn't actually be "outside of their own programming", respectively that brain is constrained by "its own programming" too.