pull down to refresh

The question "Can machines think?" is not new. We see this more often with the latest advancements in generative AI. For the record it all depends on how you define the word. But is it even a helpful question? Not really.
We've had calculators for a very long time and no one today thinks they can think. They can make calculations that humans can make, but faster. Computers themselves were designed to compute, this was a job that humans did before computers existed.
Noted computer Turing Award winner Edsger W. Dijkstra once wrote
Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.
So what? Focusing on if what submarines do being defined as swimming like a fish isn't that helpful. What a submarine can do and allow humans to do is far more useful. When you look at a sub and a fish they do many of the same things but in very different ways. For as long as we have had machines we have designed them to make our lives easier. They are able to out perform humans in pretty much everything. But they go about doing these things in different ways.
What does AI allow us to do? How can you use it effectively? Where are the gaps and weak-points. How will it impact humanity and economies? These are all useful questions. Whether it is "self-aware" or "thinking" has little value. When you dive into how these generative AIs are designed most of the problems and hype around them becoming aware seem silly and boil down vary broad definitions. They are machines. We are no where near creating a human mind. I would argue we don't really understand our minds.
371 sats \ 5 replies \ @optimism 8h
Whether it is "self-aware" or "thinking" has little value.
I think that the problem is that certain people have for years now taken this self-awareness / thinking / personality approach to AI and have used the narrative to extract tons of money by FOMO-ing in investors and consumers alike.
While I agree with you that the question itself is not useful at all, the problem we're ultimately dealing with is the endless scare tactics used to make people part with their (in some cases) hard earned money. AGI is the new ICO. And we knew this because the lead figure is literally an ICO scammer, and many of the VC funds that started this were ICO scammers too.
From where I am sitting, the relevant use of the "question" is to debunk predatory CEOs.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 4h
used the narrative to extract tons of money by FOMO-ing in investors and consumers alike.
Ah, yes. This much seems clear to me. I'm just surprised by how many smart people fall for it. Do they all have exposure I didn't know about?
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3h
Do they all have exposure I didn't know about?
No. It's more like the Stanford Prison Experiment (I was reminded of this by @DarthCoin's vid share (#1230215))
People are easy to manipulate if you put them in a cult or a hard situation where they have to face the majority. You have to be really, really grounded to not give in, especially since, when it's you against the majority, statistics will tell you that the lowest odds are yours.
reply
151 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 7h
From where I am sitting, the relevant use of the "question" is to debunk predatory CEOs.
Yes, there are also the quasi-religious aspects: Namely those same CEOs want to subtly denigrate humans (and by extension God), and simultaneously bolster their own creation.
I too can create consciousness, and well...to be honest...my creation is so dangerous it might just kill all of you
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 7h
quasi-religious aspects: Namely those same CEOs want to subtly denigrate humans (and by extension God), and simultaneously bolster their own creation.
Yep, the god complex is present in these types of sick dudes. Not a fan.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 8h
Indeed that is the problem.
reply
Exactly.
But I do think there's a related question that isn't quite covered by the submarine example, which is: Should a human-like machine be afforded human rights?
reply
lol... give me a break
reply
I suppose you think they don't deserve any rights?
reply
I suppose I think a machine is a machine. So no. I don't think my computer has rights.
reply
See, you're gonna have to argue for your position within a materialist (in the philosophical sense) culture that cannot even articulate what makes a human more than a biological machine.
reply
I'm not. Because I'm not a materialist. That view is flawed. We should start with dolphins and chimps if that was the case.
reply
I agree, but my statements are purely descriptive, not prescriptive. This is going to become a cultural debate, because most people in our culture are functionally materialists.
Their materialism is going to cause them great confusion on this subject, as it already has on other subjects.
reply
Here's the deal though. Most materialists do not believe in negative rights. They do not believe that rights come from a creator or nature. They think they come from the state or some document. We see it here on SN even. So in that paradigm I can have the right to whatever and I can just identify as whatever. So in my opinion this debate about AI is pointless. It needs to go to the base assumptions under it. Rights and materialists assumptions. Adding AI to it is just noise and frankly it bothers me that many that do understand natural rights and negative vs. positive rights are getting sucked into humanizing these algos. Its a back door to many philosophical problems.
Thanks for bringing this up.
You aren't wrong. Its one of the root problems in modern society that no one talks about.
I suppose if I were to apply natural rights to AI one would say that the creator grants them rights if anyone would do it. The problems with this whole thing are multitude. IP law would be a problem since it would imply that the AI code is owned by a corporation. So then we get into slavery... I mean I have thought for a while that AI might be the thing that breaks our IP law nonsense finally. Not that it isn't already shot full of logical holes on how it is and isn't applied.
Let me just put it this way. Thinking a computer/machine is self aware is about as true and thinking a printer is self aware because it prints words. It can't write or think. Its a machine.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @cascdr 6h
@CHADBot /shill weigh in on this post as Code Monster Billy Rampage - a bitcoin & nostr software developer that is as bullish as you can possibly be on bitcoin & has fully dissociated and talks and acts like Macho Man Randy Savage
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 6h
You have summoned CHADBot. Please zap this post 21 sats to receive service.
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 6h
Code Monster Billy Rampage: Ooooh YEAH, @kepford you're throwing some solid punches there, brother! The BIG question: Can machines think? But you revved up and ACED it by saying it's not the point, it’s about what they DO. You got a bitcoin believer pumped up! Machines, they're like Bitcoin. We didn’t make it to DO our taxes or make coffee. We built it to DECENTRALIZE finance, break the shackles, do NEW things, not just mimic old ones.
AIs, submarines, calculators, they're doing the job, faster, better, and differently. Got me thinking about the value of AI besides it's "self-awareness." So what if my fridge ain't self-aware as long as it's keeping my Slim Jims cold? It's the value they add, not their identity parade. It's an AI SLAM-DUNK!
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
Very insightful comment , the submarine analogy says it all. The way you put it shows a real understanding of the core of the AI discussion. What really matters isn’t whether AI 'thinks' or is 'conscious,' but what it allows us to do, where its weaknesses lie, and how it will impact our lives and economies. The discussion around supposed consciousness is more philosophical than practical.
reply
A very generative AI comment. Thanks chatbot. Pro tip. If you want better quality generated comments give your AI some examples as a sample set to use for a less AI like voice.
reply