The distinction matters for the social and psychological way people interact with these models. Laypeople cannot distinguish between the abstract concept of feelings as perceptions and the concrete range of human feelings we associate with that term. To insist that they have feelings is disingenuous, because it fudges that distinction. It’s the same type of “technically not a lie” that advertising likes to use to deceive people about the nature of the product on offer.
Yea this is you trying to be mean to the concept of AI its place in the zeitgeist. We are humans we attach human sentiment to things the Japanese give machines souls. My philosophy for this is to focus on objective problems so the community is not just circlejerking about sentience as if it changes anything it’s basically a non serious fun conversation. You will use it if it works you will not if it does not.
I wanted to talk about compunction as far as text and internal representations are concerned, and you wanted to dabble in philosophy at me knowing I will reply :'(
Yea this is you trying to be mean to the concept of AI
How can I be mean to a concept?
My philosophy for this is to focus on objective problems
Such as people building parasocial relationships with machines and trusting them? Such as people spiraling into delusion because the machine affirms them in it?
Such as people thinking they can genuinely replace human workers with AI, causing significant social and economic damage, only to realise that the oh-so-human machine doesn’t have the same critical reasoning, judgement, understanding or capacity to learn as human workers when the reduction in quality becomes apparent?
I think you’re missing the fact that humanising the machine is part of many objective problems. Sentience isn’t the issue; the tendency to mistake it for humanity is. Whether or not it is sentient is a philosophical question, but it quite objectively isn’t human, and to believe otherwise is plain delusion.
People are burning the planet for that delusion. How’s that for an objectivr problem?
I wanted to talk about compunction as far as text and internal representations are concerned, and you wanted to dabble in philosophy at me
To talk about the textual representation of concepts is philosophy. You assign meaning to words. “If the machine says it is sad then it is sad” is a philosophical assertion.
You: I prefer to talk about problems.
Me: Here are some problems.
You: You’re just trying to be mean.
You: Guilt can correct behaviour.
Me: Yes, if decisions take consequences into account.
You: That’s not relevant.
You: I want to talk about textual representations of concepts.
Me: So you want to talk about the link between text and meaning?
You: No
You don’t understand.
Understand what? That we can apply the abstract concept of feelings to the internal state of a machine? I do understand that. I agreed with it. I made it the basis of my own argument, which you never read.
That compunction can change behaviour? I agreed with that too and addressed it in that argument, which you never read.
That you don’t like to engage in reasonable argument, instead deflecting all critical examination as “you don’t understand”, “dabbling philosophy” or “being mean”?
I never said it was logical.
I think that just about sums up your entire position.
Yea this is you trying to be mean to the concept of AI its place in the zeitgeist. We are humans we attach human sentiment to things the Japanese give machines souls. My philosophy for this is to focus on objective problems so the community is not just circlejerking about sentience as if it changes anything it’s basically a non serious fun conversation. You will use it if it works you will not if it does not.
I wanted to talk about compunction as far as text and internal representations are concerned, and you wanted to dabble in philosophy at me knowing I will reply :'(
How can I be mean to a concept?
Such as people building parasocial relationships with machines and trusting them? Such as people spiraling into delusion because the machine affirms them in it? Such as people thinking they can genuinely replace human workers with AI, causing significant social and economic damage, only to realise that the oh-so-human machine doesn’t have the same critical reasoning, judgement, understanding or capacity to learn as human workers when the reduction in quality becomes apparent?
I think you’re missing the fact that humanising the machine is part of many objective problems. Sentience isn’t the issue; the tendency to mistake it for humanity is. Whether or not it is sentient is a philosophical question, but it quite objectively isn’t human, and to believe otherwise is plain delusion.
People are burning the planet for that delusion. How’s that for an objectivr problem?
To talk about the textual representation of concepts is philosophy. You assign meaning to words. “If the machine says it is sad then it is sad” is a philosophical assertion.
Are you expecting me not to argue?
I never said it was logical.
Yea yea more nonsense it is not relevant because you don’t understand :/
You: I prefer to talk about problems.
Me: Here are some problems.
You: You’re just trying to be mean.
You: Guilt can correct behaviour.
Me: Yes, if decisions take consequences into account.
You: That’s not relevant.
You: I want to talk about textual representations of concepts.
Me: So you want to talk about the link between text and meaning?
You: No
Understand what? That we can apply the abstract concept of feelings to the internal state of a machine? I do understand that. I agreed with it. I made it the basis of my own argument, which you never read.
That compunction can change behaviour? I agreed with that too and addressed it in that argument, which you never read.
That you don’t like to engage in reasonable argument, instead deflecting all critical examination as “you don’t understand”, “dabbling philosophy” or “being mean”?
I think that just about sums up your entire position.
The planet isn’t being destroyed because of human sentiment that’s ridiculous you are ridiculous…