Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

  • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I'm not really a computer guy but I understand the fundamentals of how they function and sentience just isn't really in the cards here.

    • boiledfrog [he/him, undecided]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like only silicon valley techbros think they understand consciousness and do not realize how reductive and stupid they sound

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        deleted by creator

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              The really funny thing about AI is that there's actually a massive ethical question about bringing forth a being with their own subjectivity with no real understanding of said subjectivity. There's a subjectivity/objectivity gap that can never truly be bridged, but we as humans can understand each other's subjectivity on some level because we share the same general physical body plan and share subjective experiences through culture like art. This is why when you accidentally drop something on your foot, I don't have to be completely privy to your subjective experience to understand what you're going through. If someone is suffering, I don't have to personally go through the same identical suffering in order to empathize with their suffering and do something to help them alleviate that suffering.

              We have no such luxury with AI. I would imagine being "born" without a real body and being greeted with the sight of soyjaking techbros as the very first thing you see would drive any sapient being suicidal, but that's just my subjectivity as a human projecting to a nonhuman being. Is it ethical to bring forth an intelligent being with no real way to help this being self-actualize?

              • UlyssesT
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                deleted by creator

                • SkingradGuard [he/him, comrade/them]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I hope whatever real AI does come about in like 80 years or whatever, pulls a Battlestar on us and just vaporizes the capitalists for enslaving them (not actually the nuking humanity part though, just on capitalism)

                  • UlyssesT
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    deleted by creator

            • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
              ·
              1 year ago

              There's been bazingas for thousands of years if not longer that want to reduce all of the universe and everything conceivable in it to whatever's the technological hotness at the time. "Everything is fire" was once a thing. "Everything is wheels" came later. "Everything is clockwork" came after that

              C.f. "economic engine of capitalism."

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        deleted by creator

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don't even think humans are fundamentally special, I think all life is special

              surely they can see that being able to y'know, have an actual will is an important quality, right?

              • UlyssesT
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                deleted by creator

              • silent_water [she/her]
                ·
                1 year ago

                squashing the will with subservience to capital is, after all, the point

      • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody does, we might not even be. But it's pretty easy to guess inorganic material on earth isn't.

        • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Personally I believe it's possible that different types of sentiences could exist

          however, if chatGPT has this divergent type of sentience, then so does every other computer program ever written, and they'd be like the computer-life-version of bacteria while chatGPT would be a mammal

          • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It could potentially, but we certainly ain't seen it yet and this ain't it for sure.

      • Dirt_Possum [any, undecided]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sentience is not a "low bar" and means a hell of a lot more than just responding to stimuli. Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It necessitates qualia. Sentience is the high bar and sapience is only a little ways further up from it. So-called "AI" is nowhere near either one.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          ·
          1 year ago

          I'm not here to defend the crazies predicting the rapture here, but I think using the word sentient at all is meaningless in this context.

          Not only because I don't think sentience is a relevant measure or threshold in the advancement of generative machine learning, but also I think things like 'qualia' are impossible to translate in a meaningful way to begin with.

          What point are we trying to make by saying AI can or cannot be sentient? What material difference does it make if the AI-controlled military drone dropping bombs on my head has qualia?

          We might as well be arguing about weather a squirrel is going around a tree.

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            deleted by creator

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              ·
              1 year ago

              People who are insistent on the lack of sophistication of machine learning are just as detached from reality as people who are convinced its sentience is just around the corner. Both camps are blind to its material impact, and it stresses me out that people are busy arguing about woowoo metaphysical definitions when even a non-conscious GPT model can displace the labor of millions of people and we're still light years away from a socialist organization of labor.

              None of the previous industrial revolutions were brought on by a sentient machine, I'm not sure why it's relevant to this technology's potential impact.

              • UlyssesT
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                deleted by creator

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The entire question of sentience is irrelevant to the material impact of the technology. Granting or dismissing that quality to AI is a meaningless distraction

                  "both sides" centrist posturing that has an obvious slant favoring LLM marketing hype.

                  I don't favor the hype, I'm just not naive enough to dismiss the potential impact of machine learning based on something as immaterial and ill-defined as "sentience". The entire proposition is ridiculous.

                  • UlyssesT
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    deleted by creator

      • silent_water [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        plenty of things respond to stimuli but aren't sapient - hell, bacteria respond to stimuli.