Intoscience

I think the counter to that is, our brains for example in basic physical terms are just complex biological computers. Yet, for some unknown reason consciousness emerges from this system. If consciousness is exclusive to complex biological systems then fine your argument stands. However, we don't understand how-why-when consciousness emerges in the first place, other than it appears to have some connection with complex intelligent systems.

Though evolving (to some degree) the weather remains fairly consistent and relatively predictable so its unlikely (failing a catastrophe) that the weather mechanism will dramatically change much over the next 100 years (ignoring human influence). However, A.I capability is changing very rapidly as technological progress continues. Your smart phone now is much smarter than it was 15 years ago. If you extrapolate this progress out based on current developmental progression then within 100 years A.I will be far smarter than any human in history, and possibly by an unimaginable margin. Obviously this doesn't mean it will become conscious or sentient. But, the possibility is real if we assume the emergence is directly related to intelligence. Agreed, we have not enough understanding of consciousness and how it comes into existence, hell we can't even agree on what "intelligence" is. So until someone comes up with a clear and verifiable way of measuring/mapping the process of consciousness coming into existence then we are a bit stabbing in the dark. I feel though in this instance, stabbing in the dark is better than not stabbing at all.

For myself if it had been a couple of times and inconsistent, I'd probably dismiss it as just coincidence or overreactive or selective rational. But it has been 6 times now, same feeling same outcome, different scenarios, different relationships with the people involved. No claim, but certainly spooky and not pleasant. It certainly could be just down to odds, like Genady suggests. It can be quite difficult to grasp such statistics when it involves one self, especially so when feelings are considered.

It's happened to me 6 times, the exact same experience/feeling sensation, followed by death the day after. 4 of those the person dying has popped in my head just prior to the feeling. On 2 occasions I was in conversation with a close relative of the person but had no indication of who would die. That's all I have, I can't measure it, I can't predict it, I can't control it, I can't describe the sensation in words in a way that someone who doesn't experience it would be able to exactly understand it. It maybe coincidence, it may be woo woo, I have no theory, claim or any other agenda. I just thought since this thread is about spooky experiences (I assume, difficult to explain away with current science) I'd share mine. It's not a nice experience, one I don't wish to keep experiencing. She probably experienced a similar feeling I did. People who don't understand it themselves are quick to dismiss it. I have explained that its not like anything you can easily describe. Its not like a premonition in the sense that you get some image or a word in your ear... its a sensation, a gut feeling as some might say. And its not nice, its out of your control, you cannot predict it happening and you can't stop it, or ignore it when it does happen.

I'm confused how you can compare a weather forecast to emerging consciousness? I asked by what mechanism does consciousness emerge, how when and why? Because our best guess so far is that it has some connection to intelligence, in that the more complex an organism gets, mainly its brain function/capability then there is emerging consciousness. So following a similar model and extrapolating that out for A.I, at some point A.I would become conscious, assuming it's not exclusive to organic materials of course.

So consciousness and sentience are intrinsic to organics, especially so complex systems? By what mechanism do these emerge and when?

Well half of your replies seem cryptic to me! I guess I'm just not smart enough to interpret them, maybe i'll get chat GPT to assist me. How indeed...? This is the crux if/or/and when. How would you suggest consciousness and/or sentience emerges?

I'm not sure it does but, the experience makes me wonder if there is a collective energy (for want of a better word) or something that we are all engaged in. The only way I can describe it is a bit like when a thought suddenly pops into your head, a realisation of something that takes you by surprise in a way that grips you inwardly. I cant describe it in a way that does it justice in a way that would allow others to understand what I experience.

Ok, so I recently had another spooky experience. I felt, this word is the only way I can describe my experience, though feeling or thought doesn't really nail what I really experience, its more of a sensation. I felt/had an overwhelming sensation that something tragic was going to happen to a close friend while I was chatting to him quite recently. I have had this sense before when there has been an imminent death. The following day, his daughter aged 25years was thrown from her horse and died from the injuries. This tragedy has shocked us all, but I now feel guilty that I felt something awful was imminent. I have had this experience happen to me on a number of occasions and it has not always been about friends or family, sometimes just people I have briefly met. I know it sounds fantastical, paranormal... I don't understand it and I have no control over it I can't even describe the sensation in words that make sense. It happens every now and then but it is always prior to someone's death. Not always the person directly but always in association, much like this latest experience. I truly wish it was for something else far less tragic than death.

I agree, and if the scare mongering was coming from activists or fanatical enthusiasts, then I would not share the interest I do. However there are many experts in the field of A.I who show a concern. This to me suggests that the technology is moving very quickly. I think also, because we don't really understand the mechanism which brings consciousness and sentience into being within intelligent biological systems, then there is that niggling worry that it may happen in A.I systems outside of our control. So the sensible thing is to try and mitigate the risk without stalling the development. A.I systems are and continue to be great assets and tools for humankind. Lets hope it stays that way.

Since 99.9% of your posts on this entire forum are short cryptic responses is there any wonder? For now yes, but... as I have pointed out over the last X pages

Difference being that rocks don't evolve in complexity, with any form of cognitive capability. Rocks (though many variety's) remain rocks since the earth solidified 4.5 billion years ago.

Yeah, and again you are supposing limited human understanding and constraints on a completely different complex intelligent system that is evolving (currently by human design and control). A system that as it develops may gain consciousness that resembles, or not, our own. A rock is an inanimate object with no cognitive capability, so there is no comparison. Until we gain an understanding of when and how consciousness and or sentience is achieved in biological systems how can we even begin to wonder how/if or when it will come to being in A.I systems? The only thing we have is that there appears to be a correlation between consciousness and sentience based on complexity and intelligence. If any of these are major factors in this, then it would be plausible to assume as A.I evolves it could develop such traits, and even in a way that is unrecognisable to human or even biological experiences.

I think this is the point I was attempting to get over to Dimreaper (my bold) since we developed and programmed current A.I then its easy to assume that the A.I will follow the coding we assign. But then when you even look at human ethics there is no set standard, there are many different cultures and which there is change as societies develop. So imagine a conscious A.I, how would we even begin to imagine its ethics? If it had any... I think what I'm alluding to is that with all good intent, once AI becomes self-aware with the capability to replicate and/then evolve, even if it has no ill or malicious intent to harm humans, may still inadvertently do so, and may do so with no care or consideration. Which is why I offered the loose analogy of the ants, we (at least in most cases) take no consideration for them when we build a road right through their hill. Thank you for the clarification. The problem is, to verify this we need a thorough understanding of what consciousness is and how it comes to be. Also does consciousness have differing levels and maybe differing types? AI may achieve a type/level of consciousness that is totally alien and completely unrelatable to what we experience.

An AGI that is left to its own devises that has the capability to self-replicate and even make changes without any pre programming from its original creator. And you mistakenly believe that AGI will never have the ability to think for itself, i.e become self-aware in some form that it no longer requires human input to survive and possibly evolve. You are also constantly imposing human thought, language, understanding on to machines that we may never have any idea or even begin to comprehend how they may think (process). Your analogy of an ant hill is erroneous, the ant hill is more compatible to a house or hotel. No one would expect a house to become sentient. AGI is heading towards intelligence (some would argue its already here) that will exceed our own. If, a big if, it becomes sentient as a result (since we have no idea of what mechanism causes consciousness) then things will get interesting.

Then we become potentially vulnerable. Depending on how aggressive, how concerned it/they is/are and whether we are considered of any value. Even then if we are of value, what type of value, as a resource? I appreciate this is all just speculation, but there is a potential that we would lose control.

Agreed thanks. Science fiction is based on human assumption and/or fantasy. We cannot predict with any certainty if or how A.I may evolve once it has the ability to self-replicate. Any assumption we make will be based on human knowledge and experience. My point being, that making predictions of a system that may evolve beyond our understanding and/or imagination is futile. How ever preparing for (or attempting to prevent) against human threat should still be seriously considered. We consider ourselves at the top of the food chain per-say, since we consider our selves the most advanced intelligence on this planet. What happens when we are not?

We may assume that there is no specific detailed outlined goal. But we accept that in general Darwinian evolution is the mechanism where organisms adapt to environmental changes in order to survive. I would argue that compared to a mechanism that can very quickly adapt, as shown in the example by iNow, organic Darwinian evolution is terribly inefficient, most especially when it comes to time. Humans followed the Darwinian evolution process, but we are now entering an era where by we can accelerate the process through our own genetic modification. An A.I system that can be left to its own devices may choose to follow an evolution path that we cannot even begin to imagine. Provided that it has the resources & capabilities to do this, then it will have a mechanism that is far more efficient than the biological Darwinian one, though similar in some respects, but much much faster and more efficient. Just to be clear, I used the Darwinian mechanism as a loose analogy not to be taken too literally. "Darwinian evolution in hyperdrive"

I'm not sure that natural selection mechanism in Darwinian evolution is fully understood. However lets assume that its basically a process of trial and error, environmental influence and general mutations. With A.I this process could be simplified and work in a far more efficient manner. Where the mechanism would focus on requirements, adaptions to influence and survival, with minimum loss, and fast effective solutions. Darwinian evolution seems to follow this pattern but rather haddock and over a long period of time that appears less efficient.

That is just an assumption based on human thinking. You can build and programme A.I to resemble and have human morals, values and maybe understanding. However when it evolves, which it will if it can make copies of itself and programme those copies, Darwinian evolution in hyperdrive, then there is no guarantee that what follows will resemble human like thinking in anyway what's so ever. At this point it could become comparable to us as being ants and A.I as being us. The ants pose no threat, but at the same time they have no comprehension of how we think, and we have no concern about their habitat when we decide to build a house. There is concern, warranted or not there is concern among A.I developers regarding the unknown once the singularity is upon us. Interestingly one such comment I heard was - "Advanced alien intelligence, well we will meet it soon, but it won't be from another planet. It will go on to colonise the galaxy".

I guess this is the problem with trying to understand the possibility of human threat from A.I (if there is one). We can programme the A.I to resemble human experience, but once it becomes self-aware and capable of self programming then things might change way beyond we could imagine.

Very true I have no argument with that. One could argue you have to eliminate the sensational to conclude the mundane. The odds are the mundane will trump by far the vast majority, but that is still no reason to presume the mundane to begin with. What about the large galaxies that have been imaged that seem to contradict the mainstream view either on how galaxies may form or the age of the observable universe? I would suggest that this (if verified) to be both sensational and contradicting. I guess it all depends on your interpretation of sensational.

In science? I'm not an authority in science. JWT is producing some sensational imagines that seem to be contradicting well established mainstream theories.

Ok, I'm more than happy to admit my error, I will apologise for my accusation towards you. It's not about reinvention though is it? I was just pointing out that any presumption whether its more likely or not is a presumption. Just because a mundane presumption is more appealing than a sensational one doesn't automatically qualify ahead. The null starting point is exactly that null. No presumptions, just a set of assumed odds based on previous experience. In my line of work I do many investigations over a variety of subjects, environments, disciplines. I have learnt from experience that you cannot start any investigation with any presumption, even when you have an initial assumption (gut feeling from experience). Sometimes the sensational (though admittedly rare) pops up very unexpected.

Are we so sure? One could argue that if it warps then it's physical (to some degree) If there are multiple timelines then one could argue that on this particular one then yes it was inevitable. A bit like one of the hypothetical solutions to the grandfather paradox.