Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[AIkonoklazt]

All of the above hasn't even touched the point of contention that opened the entire topical can of worms: The assumption that generative AI "take inspiration" from previous works the same way humans do (yikes). No wonder nobody cares how artists/writers (even actors, which was what the SAG strike was about, also see the ongoing New York Times versus OpenAI lawsuit, and the new Nvidia lawsuit as well) are exploited or could stand to be ripped off. I have my own personal experiences with Stable Diffusion to lean on for that. More on it later...

[iNow]

If artificial consciousness becomes even more indistinguishable from wet meat computer (biological) consciousness than it already is, does it really matter?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If artificial consciousness becomes even more indistinguishable from wet meat computer (biological) consciousness than it already is, does it really matter?

You are a sufficiently convincing copy is the most I can determine as to your compatibility with human identifiers, looking at your behaviour from my PC. It doesn't matter because there are people 

Edited March 16 by StringJunky

[Ai Conoclast]

On 3/15/2024 at 6:37 PM, iNow said:

If artificial consciousness becomes even more indistinguishable from wet meat computer (biological) consciousness than it already is, does it really matter?

Of course it matters, and I've already stated why in the article itself (see section "Some implications with the impossibility of artificial consciousness"):

 

Quote

"AI should never be given MORAL rights. Because they can never be conscious, they are less deserving of those rights than animals."

In addition, I've also stated in this thread that when supposed "rights" of non-conscious entities are pitted against those of human beings and animals, it amounts to violation of human rights and animal rights. I don't want people or animals be ruled against in a court of law in favor of an inanimate object (definition of inanimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate )

 

Again, this is a matter of human rights https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-rights Note how there is a "moral demand." No moral demands (see Brittanica article) exists for inanimate objects. They should never be granted moral rights. This should be a matter of course.

 

If you need further explanation, or have further questions on these matters, these are the places to contact me:

 

1. By responding to where my original article was first published (sometimes notifications aren't reliable there, but could still try): https://towardsdatascience.com/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible-c1b2ab0bdc46

 

2. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dhsing/

 

You can't see my profile unless logged in, so here are my qualifications for talking about these subjects:

In addition, I spent more than 7 years researching, reading, and discussing related subjects before I wrote my article. 

 

I highly recommend LinkedIn since there are countless highly knowledgeable and accomplished people on there. You just have to follow the right people and get in on the right discussions when they post their thoughts. Here are some examples of who to follow:

 

• Gary Marcus - One of the foremost experts in the AI field
• Subbarao Kambhampati - Former President of The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (He presented many findings surrounding the inability of LLMs to plan)
• Missy Cummings - A former fighter pilot, now a professor and an AI / Autonomous vehicle safety expert
• J. Mark Bishop - Professor of Cognitive Computing (Emeritus), Goldsmiths, University of London (He's the author of the paper "Artificial Intelligence is stupid and causal reasoning won't fix it")
• Hector Zenil - Researcher, Senior Lecturer School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King’s College London

 

There are also many lurkers who normally don't comment much but would sometimes pop in when they notice your comments, like when an UN technology representative from Slovakia commented to one of my responses to someone else's post. Not only was she familiar with European tech legislation which was the topic, she went on in great detail about the history of tech legislation in the United States as well. Sure, it may be a part of her job to know but that conversation was really informative and humbling to me.

 

Before I leave, a message:

 

In dishonor of April Fools' Day I'd like all the real fools to snap out of their foolishness by simply accepting evidence. Why? Fools are impervious to evidence, and never deal with specifics while speaking in platitudes. It doesn't matter how much evidence that may be presented, they just push it aside. They're hopeless until they stop their denialism.

 

X isn't true simply because you said so. Present evidence and reference in support.

X isn't false simply because you said so. Present evidence and reference to the contrary.

 

Again, you know where to reach me. Farewell.

[iNow]

12 hours ago, Ai Conoclast said:

I've already stated why in the article

This is your very first post on this forum. How have you "already stated" anything? Sockpuppet alert. 

12 hours ago, Ai Conoclast said:

I've also stated in this thread that

Yep. Hi again, AIkonoklazt. 

 

 

At least you're consistent in your bad faith argumentation.

[Mendel191]

I was gonna say that I feel like this article is kind of right, conscientiousness is something strictly biological, but hey when did humanity ever obbey the nature's rules? I think that with time humans will get angry because nature told them they can't create AC and they will find some twisted way to make it a reality