AIkonoklazt

Tell that to the original poster. Meanwhile, here's a coupla thousand words for you: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/

Oh, that stranger has a name. Guilio Tononi. You can also maybe count Koch, too. I'm just somewhat dismayed that not many people even carefully look at the ill-conceived thought experiment that started it all.

What both of you said are true. However, models have this "permanently temporary" status of sorts. You have models that are more or less reliable and useful than others, but ultimately there's no completion. Nahp, this classical example is a bit more impressive: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/superbowlindicator.asp

Yeah, the result was offering "first world solutions." I wonder if LLM developers use PageRank-like algorithms to prioritize training data, because commercial links should have higher manufactured SEO.

What Science Does And Does Not Do Let's say that we witness two things, A and B. B comes after A, and as far as we can tell, B is "caused" by A. A ---> B We confirm this by doing stuff so that whenever A happens, B seems to always happen after A. Do this a lot of times (more than a few), and this is become somewhat of a "law." A ---> B A ---> B A ---> B A ---> B A ---> B A ---> B A ---> B We soon have better ways of figuring things out (technological advances), and pretty soon we start to see that there are more "steps" that go between A and B A ---> A1 ---> B A ---> A1 ---> A2 ---> A3 ---> B A ---> A1a-->A1b-->A1c-->A2a-->A2b-->A2c-->A3a-->A3b-->A3c-->B Actually, this division can go on downwards pretty much forever, until you hit a "wall of non-explanation"... "We have the protons and neutrons of an atom which are made up of even smaller subatomic particles, but what is holding those together? The nuclear forces should be pushing those apart... All the atoms in the universe should all be flying apart by now... Wait, we have detected some evidence that something must be holding them together. Since it sort of "glues" the subatomic particles together we'll call it GLUONS..." (hmm ok, so what makes up these "gluons?" Let's play "dissect a gluon" and see what happens next, and next... ad infinitum) or "At the base of evolution is genetic mutation, which is caused by some kind of gene damage via the collision of high-energy particles to the DNA or carcinogenic (or otherwise disruptive/distabilizing) substances to the same..." (...which goes back to "what made up those chemicals" and "what produces that high energy radiation" and the question ultimately ends up going back to the sort of stuff you see in physics, like I described earlier) So basically, science describe things in smaller and smaller steps, and predicts how things would repeat in a more and more accurate basis, but never actually manages to explain exactly how or why any of these "smallest steps" have to happen at all. Why do anything change, at all? Divide things long enough, and you get a really small piece that you don't really have a good explanation for, other than "it looks to always goes to this next step if we have this other step before" So what? Science describes and predicts phenomena. It never "explains" any of it. It does't have to. That's actually not what science is for. Science is about the knowledge of the physical universe. Scientists don't do metaphysics**, and they don't do "metaphysical experiments" because there's no such thing as "metaphysical experiments." **metaphysics- the philosophical investigation of the overall nature of reality ...Also, there isn't such a thing as a "complete and correct model." This goes back to Duhem and Quine, which was mentioned in the opening post. Underdetermination entails no exhaustive modeling of underdetermined systems (such as the brain) is possible, as explained by the following passage from SEP (emphasis mine): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ “…when Newton’s celestial mechanics failed to correctly predict the orbit of Uranus, scientists at the time did not simply abandon the theory but protected it from refutation… “…This strategy bore fruit, notwithstanding the falsity of Newton’s theory… “…But the very same strategy failed when used to try to explain the advance of the perihelion in Mercury’s orbit by postulating the existence of “Vulcan”, an additional planet… “…Duhem was right to suggest not only that hypotheses must be tested as a group or a collection, but also that it is by no means a foregone conclusion which member of such a collection should be abandoned or revised in response to a failed empirical test or false implication.” There are related adages to this, such as: "All models are wrong, some are useful" "Correlation does not imply causation" "The map is not the territory" Etc.

Oh boy, IIT. Do you know someone edited the IIT wikipedia article to take out the following reference to a refutation I saw years ago? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574706/ hmmm maybe because government funding is actually involved in crackpot IIT research? The entire foundation underpinning IIT is bunk- The original thought experiment is so unrealistic it boggles the mind how people would buy into it; When I'm in a dark room I don't immediately start to imagine everything that's NOT there. That's obviously not the way things work (heck maybe it's the way things work for the IIT adherents?) ...I try to sense what COULD be there. To think that the entire theory rests upon this silly presumption! The "information exclusion" thesis is stupid.

I've never played Kerbal Space Program before. Is it fun?

stuck your post into an LLM and it spat back the following paragraph, which I wouldn't trust since the solution sounds expensive... But hey I tried just as hard as you did!

Use this pic if you have trouble remembering Ohm's law

It's not what they "are" but what they use. Here's an explanation nicely canned for you, enjoy... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/30/the-connection-between-political-lies-and-conspiracy-theories-00108378

For a moment there I actually thought it was stolen from the Copypasta subreddit (maybe I should copy-pasta THAT onto r/copypasta...)

Right. I was talking about trying to find holes in my own argumentation, and someone decides to talk that down, including you. This is what I get from an anonymous forum. Oh, and someone who forgot to take their meds chiming in after your reply.

Agreed. Even if there are definable functions (which are inevitably underdetermined) the contributive behavior can constantly change: https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ten-thousand-neurons-linked-behaviors-fly

Good grief, you don't even know what loophole I'm talking about. You're just taking any opportunity for shots. Blocked.

An individual manager of a corporation isn't the same as a corporation (i.e. a robot manager is still a robot, not a corporation). Even corporations themselves don't have a full set of natural personal rights, nor could even be considered an individual entity for moral consideration and thus any moral right (corporations are collections of people, and not just one person) I would have to evaluate arguments that I haven't seen before. I've built up the section "responses to counterarguments" over about 6 years of discussion, and the bases are pretty much covered. I've even tried to find a loophole in my own argumentation myself (it's doubly difficult to find loopholes to an argument you've constructed yourself) but nope, someone I spoke with reminded me that loophole basically collapsed to another form of functionalism.

Physical damage isn't the only type of legal claim. Financial and even claimed "emotional damages" can end up in civil proceedings. It's absurd to process claims from an inanimate object, since a claim involves a linguistic referent. The only claims involved should be property rights, by the human owners of the tools, and not any purported moral rights of the tools "themselves." I don't see what that has to do with conferring moral rights to AI. Tools can be used without conferring any rights to them, except non-moral rights such as right-of-operation in a transport lane e.g. robot vehicles.

Think you missed the bit where I talked about people having their rights pitted against those of inanimate objects in a court of law What if you end up being one of those people one day... You'd appreciate at least someone looking out for your human rights The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice.

I am extremely familiar with the behavior of corporations. They will no doubt do everything in their legal power to make sure whichever shred of liability is there would go anywhere but to them. Of course they would "defend AI persons and their right to self determination..." Hopefully the 2021 UN agency ban on AI legal personality, though unenforceable, would serve as some kind of precedent. It's not me, literally. It can't be.

Again, I said nothing that connected the veracity of what one says to one's real name. The remedy of getting better sorts of engagement than anonymous forums is indeed a professional networking forum that uses real names. Just take a look at what happened in the other thread in which you were also a part of. You claimed others have refuted my arguments simply by their assertions, which clearly weren't the case. They weren't backing up their statements with any actual arguments when you made that claim. I get that sort of lousy "engagement" on anonymous forums all the time. You claimed that my argument had been "dismantled" by those assertions. What an utter joke- you were part of the lousiness that I spoke of. (Seen yahoos on other anonymous forums doing the exact same jig... The sort of non-argumentation is nothing new) "Hypothetical" to you, because you haven't been keeping up with the news of someone trying to start lawsuits in order to grant legal personhood to the AI he used. He wants that AI to own copyright. He himself said in some interviews he started these lawsuits in order for society to accept AI as persons https://www.wired.com/story/the-inventor-behind-a-rush-of-ai-copyright-suits-is-trying-to-show-his-bot-is-sentient/ This isn't mentioning some case that happened in Australia where a judge granted copyright to an AI and later admitted his ignorance on the subject https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/30/im-sorry-dave-im-afraid-i-invented-that-australian-court-finds-ai-systems-can-be-recognised-under-patent-law

Uhm "WTF" did I say which linked the veracity of what one says to one's real name? Oh noes a joke went over my head!

Nah. What "establishment?" There isn't any. Besides, there's no shortage of academic opinions on my side of the fence. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810016301817 https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer https://theconversation.com/why-a-computer-will-never-be-truly-conscious-120644 I'm interested on academic opinions on the other side. I've looked at some papers and they're reducible to either functionalism or behaviorism, which I've addressed. But to my previous comment... I'm just calling a spade a spade. An anonymous forum isn't much different from any other. The only remedy is to engage on a professional networking site using real names, like LinkedIn (ran into lots of yahoos there too, but all of the academics have been pleasant to deal with so far)

Let me assure you now, Mr. Vat, that thing isn't going to be sentient. There is an inherent contradiction in the very concept of a conscious machine. This place isn't all that different from all those other places.

Very far in the future, as in 2021? UN agency UNESCO banned AI legal personhood back in 2021 with its AI ethics guidelines (item 68 as I recall), ratified by all member states at the time. Yes. when I asked Assistant Director-General Gabriela Ramos about it, she used the term "ban" in reference to the guideline. But "AI rights activists" need not be alarmed; I don't think the guideline is enforceable. Countries still do what they want with their laws. That being said, there already had been legal arguments presented on the matter. This one only talks about the lack of legal sufficiency, but it's something: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/artificial-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-legal-personality/1859C6E12F75046309C60C150AB31A29 Nah, they were throughly serious, as in "I work in such and such field, therefore my arguments are more valid than yours." What "argument?" Slow down... I wasn't disagreeing but I did say it didn't matter. That much is true- What good is any purported truth if everyone just ignores it?

I didn't know occupation matters in a philosophical argument? Seriously? (This happened in other forums too. Other people suddenly bring up occupations, then I got dragged into mentioning, then it gets weird. Why even?)

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.