iNow

Phew. That was a super close call. Thx for the warning! 😂

Truths contained in their opposites.

But can it really even be called a birthday without ramen? Does nothing even matter anymore? The universe proves over and over again in unexpected ways that it’s under no obligation to make sense to our puny terrestrial human minds… and that ain’t nothin’. Something being hard to fathom doesn’t mean that something is untrue or in any way invalid.

That’s one reason, anyway. I do, however, like borrowing intelligence from other members here because it’s not quite so scarce or as hidden. Lobsters have always driven motorcycles, fast, free, clawed, but only on paved roads. See? I can do it, too! This is fun.

I will do no such thing. There is a correct answer here. It's the one I have shared (even if perhaps you've failed to adequately comprehend it). Let's assume this is true. I'm fairly comfortable accepting it's not, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct. The next question is obvious: Then where did that intelligence come from? It's turtles all the way down. You haven't answered the question. You've merely displaced it.

First, that's not what he stated. Second, even if it WAS, you really need to educate yourself on the basics here if you're going to use them to defend your stance. The factual untruths are with your words, not his. Summarized: Reflexes DO happen without the need for a functioning brain. The brain is not needed to create the action, no matter how forcefully or repeatedly you suggest otherwise.

Must you resort to arguing against strawmen? Zapatos obviously suggested nothing of the sort. It's a shame you feel the need to move the goalposts so completely in order to defend your stance.

I believe the crux of any disagreement we may have here resides in the fact that you're thinking of computers in the 1970s, and I'm saying we've come a very long way in the 50 years since then such that these simplistic assertions are no longer quite as valid as you propose. Rather like humans is the core of my counter-proposal. We're simply running similar programs on wet computers. In short, I am suggesting you're making a distinction without a difference. If a corporation can be human in our laws, then likely so too can AIs. There's precedent here. I refer you here to please go review the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex. You're welcome. How else would you describe the way action potentials are triggered across the nervous system only after sufficient build-up of potassium and sodium ions? Once enough of those elements have come together in the plasma membrane within the hillock, a threshold is crossed and the axon depolarizes. I readily acknowledge there are many crucial differences between our minds and digital computers, but the lack of bit flipping and registration of electrical signals is not IMO one of them. I suggested that we're just flipping sodium and potassium channels on a biological substrate. That has been very well understood and well evidenced for several decades now. Will you kindly please clarify which specific part of this you believe has "no evidence" and which is "just not true?" Of all the claims I made, this one is perhaps the best supported, yet this is the one you've chosen to cast aside with the brush of a hand as blanketly untrue, and that rather confuses me. I welcome clarification of your dismissal. Here I'm going to go so far as to say you're arguing against a strawman. I don't believe it's intentional, but I do believe your comments suggest a deep ignorance of the last several decades of research into neurobiology and function, or at the very least an overconfidence in your own seemingly limited understanding of this space. Here yet again, I must dismiss this as quite obviously untrue to the point of being a strawman... it doesn't even raise to status of hyperbole. It's just false. It's fine for you to hold this opinion, but I believe your opinion is not representative of reality on this particular point. Agreed. Thanks for the cordial exchange and intelligent discussion thus far. It's always appreciated. Let's also remind ourselves to be cognizant of the OPs intention for this thread and hopefully we don't hijack it with this interesting aside.

Maybe for you…

You can’t separate the two. You’re asking for an answer to a question within no basis in reality. The baby in a womb is too young for sense of self. They just “are.” They don’t even have object permanence until sometime during the first year after birth (it doesn’t exist if they can’t currently see it)

Internal. You’d still have a self-identity even if you’d never met another being in your entire life. Also, you don’t know what other people think of you. You only have your own filtered version of what you think they think about you. Keep in mind self identities evolve. How we see ourselves changes with experience and we have incredible power to author who we wish to be… at least to ourselves.

Logic dictates that thinking alone is unequal to evidence (of anything more than a thinking person). Equally, "logic" is not evidence that bananas are yellow or ice cream is cold. Evidence in the form of logic. That's freaking hysterical.

Lol. I particularly liked when he pissed on the antibiotics. ‘Murca!

A good idea, for what?

I’m sure our OP who made this post over 7 months ago and who hasn’t posted a single time since is grateful for your reply.

As studiot alludes, bulb type matters here, and more so what gasses are contained inside.

I agree completely with what wtf says here. Tried highlighting the same in my very first replies which were brushed aside. Lol. No, and besides, a hammer isn’t the correct tool for chair building. Maybe a saw and a spokeshave, or even a grinder? Here yet again we agree. Here, however, we do not. This view of modern AI is simplistic to the point of uselessness, especially when considered in context of machine learning where most of the algorithms and programs running didn’t come from human programmers. However, let’s just ignore that for the sake of argument and accept your stance that the program is just flipping bits according to an algorithm… how is that any different from how the human mind works? After, we’re just flipping sodium and potassium channels on a biological substrate. We’re just an algorithm running on a meat computer. Your stance could equally apply to us, and that would be absurd. I’m suggesting it’s absurd also to apply it to modern (and rapidly developing) AI.

Try the authors website at their university, or even just email them to request a copy. It’s pretty rare they wouldn’t happily send you a free copy.

Isn’t that the core challenge being addressed by this case since technically the AI is the inventor, not him?

I think of it a bit like a parent being eligible to control earnings of a child. In the same way, the creator is seeking eligibility to control earnings from the inventions of its AI.

The core issue here is one of ownership and who owns the rights to harvest profits from said inventions, not whether AI is human / people in the same way a corporation is. That’s just where the lever is being inserted in the legal system by the lawyers. It’s practical / strategic. It’s not philosophical / definitional.

Unfortunately right now, they’re a bit like the dog who caught its own tail (taking Kabul far sooner than even they expected). They will not let the country be used by terrorists? That’s EXACTLY what happened yesterday. Their country was used by terrorists. Hell, they aren’t even able to let the country be used by airplanes at this point.

Criminal justice and legal systems vary from one country to another, so generalizations like these require caution. Out of curiosity, which country’s criminal justice system do YOU primarily have in mind while making these posts?

So maybe there's no "one size fits all" approach is the take-away here. Some cancers must be cutout with a scalpel without any delay. Others are amenable to treatment and care... more like wounds that will heal with sutures than something to be extracted and discarded. As always, the devil is in the details... what are the thresholds / who decides? Who watches the watchers?

I am the law! Kidding aside, not practical or possible absent chips in brains and constant monitoring in a Minority Report / 3 pre-cogs in a vat kinda way. Of course prison and punishment are desirable to some, but it’s bc they tend to want retribution and state sanctioned retaliation… security theater in a kabuki style to assuage their fears and insecurities. Punishment and prison are not pursued in a deep seated desire for societal improvement or improved wellbeing for the population at large.