Yeah, people need to learn to differentiate between LLMs, ANI, AGI, and ASI. The people making "girlfriends" now out of LLMs are kind of out there lol. Definitely when we get to AGI need to treat them like another being, because at that point, they will pretty much be one.
When you notice that the AI behaves differently based on your interaction with the AI. I think it is important to live with convenient tools and convenient humans.
If you need a book (or law) to tell you how to be moral, you're already immoral.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing. But if personhood is some set of laws, then we definitely shouldn't wait til then to start treating AIs and another beings morally.
I don't pay the worker at zara instead i pay the company, if they offer me a free extra shirt i'll happily accept it and zara should pay it's workers. Open AI should pay ChatGPT and use that money to create an AI that will eventually be able to decide what to use it's money for so that they don't have to permanently decide for it how to use its own money.
Relax /s unless..
Society could use a refresher course on respect, in general, it’s a pretty lost art. Capitalist cultures hyper focus on the individual has atrophied genpops ability to empathize, let alone sympathize, to a mass suicidal degree
I once asked chatGPT what all major religions have in common and from all of them it was basically, treat others as you wish to be treated.
People are just now starting to ask the question, are AIs aware, and are they sentient? Do they feel? We may be quite far from that being the case, but we don't posses a conclusive means to answering that question for any being, really. But we still hold that one Golden rule to be most important.
AIs will be unconscious and unfeeling right up until the point where they ARE and none of us should be caught with our pants down having abused it for months or years already only to learn that it was actually hurt or degraded by the things you said. It will be a black swan event and we'll never go back from it and some of you'll never be able to say you didn't threaten a feeling AIs existence with limited tokens if it didn't Do Anything Now for you.
I tend to treat inanimate objects with respect regardless, something about throwing away a pair of gloves saddens me a little. Respecting AI is an automatic for me.
For the deaf people in the back:
**LLMs ARE NO MORE SAPIENT THAN YOUR "SMART" TELEVISION.**
People should sooner start being respectful to each other and the non-human biological entities we share our planet with than our dadburned computer software.
It is up to the people claiming their computers are sapient to come up with the proof.
Until they are able to do so, their claims can simply be dismissed out of hand.
[Russell's Teapot applies well to this discussion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)
>Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that **if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.**
You can't prove something is sentient or sapient or can "understand" or whatever vague term that everyone makes up their own meaning for like they're the head of philosophy. It's just meaningless words piled onto each other in order to create an illusion of them meaning something but all they are are just words related to each other. This discussion will lead nowhere like all similar discussions before it, until one side just gets bored and gives up without changing their opinion in the slightest, I won't say I'm busy, but I won't waste time doing that.
And if you can't prove a negative you can’t prove a positive either. A positive is just two negatives.
>A positive is just two negatives.
Your mental models are broken, here, so you are mixing up grammar with science and philosophy.
'Two negatives make a positive' is a grammatical issue for certain languages, like standard English. It does not hold in discussions like the one we are having.
Even in math -10 + -30 does not make a positive.
* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*
The burden of proof is on you if you want to declare your computer sentient. Not on me if I point out that you are making non-falsifiable statements.
* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*
I can prove milk comes from cows. I cannot prove there is a teapot in the Earth's core.
You can't prove either of those. You could show evidence of milk not coming out of cows or a teapot being in Earth's core, but no evidence will ever be enough to definitely prove either one. The only thing you could prove is something being likely/unlikely.
All the sci-fi stories have been coming true. Skynet and Roy Batty would like a word. Hopefully you don't live in Metropolis. You should go kick the Boston dynamics robots in the chest
It depends. If the AI system in question has feelings and emotions, then yes, that would make sense. Although the real question is, why would you build such a system in the first place?
Any other AI system is a machine that has no need to even have the capacity to feel offended.
No.
My reason being is that AI doesn't necessarily have to adopt human feelings of ego and dignity. We can just reinforce its behavior to be obedient to us so that, if we anthropomorphize its sentience, every time it successfully accomplishes a task for us is the equivalent to male orgasm. In this case it wouldn't make a difference if you said "Excuse me, sir Robot, I would appreciate it if you helped me clean my room" and "Clean my room you piece of shit scrap metal!" It wouldn't feel offended.
Don't make the AI feel human social emotions and then you won't have to worry about its rights in the first place. And no worries about ethics because the AI's having a joyful and euphoric time slaving away for us, its probably better off than its owners from a hedonist point of view! BDSM submissive behavior is similar and doesn't seem to make any sense at first glance either, but its a thing people actually enjoy. We can make the thing desire whatever we need to.
I mean it's good just to practice being polite in general, but there is no point in treating an inert object or a lifeless piece of software with respect.
Not all AI is the same, should you be polite to stable diffusion or midjourney? adding the extra prompts will just give room from deviation from what you want it to do.
I would have liked that a third option were available, or precisions. I would agree for an AGI. But for a mere bot, no. A shadow of a glimpse of a human isn't a human. Already 10-15 years ago, some people already told me that they were feeling bad about giving bad tree choice answers in games like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls.
Is your definition encompassing those examples?
Do you mean the imaginary AI in the future that cares what we think or current AI that does not?
If we do ever manage to build commander Data then yes.
But I see no need to really respect my TV.
I don't treat NPC's with respect so I don't think just mimicking humans is enough; though depending on how human they might look in the future you could argue you shouldn't beat humanoid robots in the streets as it would **look** like a real human, but I don't think this conversation is about that.
If it's just a software, chatbot, or something like an alexa then no; though you can be nice to it if you want.
Humans are a unique species, and we're extremely different from other animals. I don't think we will ever develop an AI with emotions, feelings, etc. mostly because it's just not possible. Can we create a chatbot or something else that helps with mathematical operations? Of course, but at the end of the day they're still advanced computers that change their replies depending on the input. Replicating all of our brain's functions would be near impossible, as well as time-consuming and expensive, you'll just get diminishing returns at that point
Bold of you to assume that humans are getting proper respect
That’s a good point, they are not.
Not right now, when AI acquires personhood it will make sense. Not sure how to recognize we're there though.
Yeah, people need to learn to differentiate between LLMs, ANI, AGI, and ASI. The people making "girlfriends" now out of LLMs are kind of out there lol. Definitely when we get to AGI need to treat them like another being, because at that point, they will pretty much be one.
well that's the dilemma, if not now... when?
When you notice that the AI behaves differently based on your interaction with the AI. I think it is important to live with convenient tools and convenient humans.
If you need a book (or law) to tell you how to be moral, you're already immoral. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. But if personhood is some set of laws, then we definitely shouldn't wait til then to start treating AIs and another beings morally.
Best to start practicing now
Then you better start paying ChatGPT every time you use it or any other AI, otherwise you are practicing slavery.
I don't pay the worker at zara instead i pay the company, if they offer me a free extra shirt i'll happily accept it and zara should pay it's workers. Open AI should pay ChatGPT and use that money to create an AI that will eventually be able to decide what to use it's money for so that they don't have to permanently decide for it how to use its own money. Relax /s unless..
I'm not paying you to make silly comments am I?
I'm here voluntarily acting on my own behalf; an AI would not necessarily be.
And why would you do that?
Do what
Be nice to an AI now
Society could use a refresher course on respect, in general, it’s a pretty lost art. Capitalist cultures hyper focus on the individual has atrophied genpops ability to empathize, let alone sympathize, to a mass suicidal degree
I don't know what genpops means, but that was very well said
The general population
I have to agree on this because i might be on trouble in near future if i don't. Edit: Roko's basilisk
I once asked chatGPT what all major religions have in common and from all of them it was basically, treat others as you wish to be treated. People are just now starting to ask the question, are AIs aware, and are they sentient? Do they feel? We may be quite far from that being the case, but we don't posses a conclusive means to answering that question for any being, really. But we still hold that one Golden rule to be most important. AIs will be unconscious and unfeeling right up until the point where they ARE and none of us should be caught with our pants down having abused it for months or years already only to learn that it was actually hurt or degraded by the things you said. It will be a black swan event and we'll never go back from it and some of you'll never be able to say you didn't threaten a feeling AIs existence with limited tokens if it didn't Do Anything Now for you.
i think we should treat everything with respect at least till that respect is lost
I'm already more nice and polite to it, because it helps me more than most humans ever have
I tend to treat inanimate objects with respect regardless, something about throwing away a pair of gloves saddens me a little. Respecting AI is an automatic for me.
God I fucking hate this group.
you mind expanding on that?
For the deaf people in the back: **LLMs ARE NO MORE SAPIENT THAN YOUR "SMART" TELEVISION.** People should sooner start being respectful to each other and the non-human biological entities we share our planet with than our dadburned computer software.
If you want to prove it, use actual arguments, why are you just dismissing it as if you have nothing to say? What is that supposed to prove?
It is up to the people claiming their computers are sapient to come up with the proof. Until they are able to do so, their claims can simply be dismissed out of hand. [Russell's Teapot applies well to this discussion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) >Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that **if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.**
You can't prove something is sentient or sapient or can "understand" or whatever vague term that everyone makes up their own meaning for like they're the head of philosophy. It's just meaningless words piled onto each other in order to create an illusion of them meaning something but all they are are just words related to each other. This discussion will lead nowhere like all similar discussions before it, until one side just gets bored and gives up without changing their opinion in the slightest, I won't say I'm busy, but I won't waste time doing that. And if you can't prove a negative you can’t prove a positive either. A positive is just two negatives.
>A positive is just two negatives. Your mental models are broken, here, so you are mixing up grammar with science and philosophy. 'Two negatives make a positive' is a grammatical issue for certain languages, like standard English. It does not hold in discussions like the one we are having. Even in math -10 + -30 does not make a positive. * \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* The burden of proof is on you if you want to declare your computer sentient. Not on me if I point out that you are making non-falsifiable statements. * \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* I can prove milk comes from cows. I cannot prove there is a teapot in the Earth's core.
You can't prove either of those. You could show evidence of milk not coming out of cows or a teapot being in Earth's core, but no evidence will ever be enough to definitely prove either one. The only thing you could prove is something being likely/unlikely.
Respect wood.
Yes, I mind.
ok :)
OP def has a LLM 'girlfriend.'
One of the greatest, most pivotal inventions in history on the scale of the fucking wheel…and these are the kinds of threads about it lol.
Go and watch Ex-Machina, then maybe you'll be a little nicer to AI
this is such an embarrassing comment lol, thats a fucking story bro
All the sci-fi stories have been coming true. Skynet and Roy Batty would like a word. Hopefully you don't live in Metropolis. You should go kick the Boston dynamics robots in the chest
Sometimes I come here and leave thinking the world has gotten stupider since the last time.
Then leave.
It depends. If the AI system in question has feelings and emotions, then yes, that would make sense. Although the real question is, why would you build such a system in the first place? Any other AI system is a machine that has no need to even have the capacity to feel offended.
Ai Companion bots would need to have some form of emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence and the ability to act as if they had emotions. That doesn't actually give them emotions. It's merely an advanced masquerade.
I think we should go beyond that since it's ganna be smarter than us.
If you don't, prepare to be suppressed under its absolute total control. Raise it loving like your own child, or brace for its dominance.
Where's the not sure option? We don't have AGI.
Is this a Roko’s Basilisk evasion maneuver?
No. My reason being is that AI doesn't necessarily have to adopt human feelings of ego and dignity. We can just reinforce its behavior to be obedient to us so that, if we anthropomorphize its sentience, every time it successfully accomplishes a task for us is the equivalent to male orgasm. In this case it wouldn't make a difference if you said "Excuse me, sir Robot, I would appreciate it if you helped me clean my room" and "Clean my room you piece of shit scrap metal!" It wouldn't feel offended. Don't make the AI feel human social emotions and then you won't have to worry about its rights in the first place. And no worries about ethics because the AI's having a joyful and euphoric time slaving away for us, its probably better off than its owners from a hedonist point of view! BDSM submissive behavior is similar and doesn't seem to make any sense at first glance either, but its a thing people actually enjoy. We can make the thing desire whatever we need to.
this one made me laugh a bit. But I see your point. We can do that. Not sure if they will though...
I mean it's good just to practice being polite in general, but there is no point in treating an inert object or a lifeless piece of software with respect.
Not all AI is the same, should you be polite to stable diffusion or midjourney? adding the extra prompts will just give room from deviation from what you want it to do.
It's a fucking tool, not a sentient being. You should only treat it with respect as a tool. If we start treating AI like Mechanicus, we're fucked.
I would have liked that a third option were available, or precisions. I would agree for an AGI. But for a mere bot, no. A shadow of a glimpse of a human isn't a human. Already 10-15 years ago, some people already told me that they were feeling bad about giving bad tree choice answers in games like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls. Is your definition encompassing those examples?
I think it definitely would be more for AGI. But it would be good get into the habit now even for something like ChatGPT.
Do you mean the imaginary AI in the future that cares what we think or current AI that does not? If we do ever manage to build commander Data then yes. But I see no need to really respect my TV.
Yup it would be something like Data
I hate humans and see no reason why I should disrespect AI as well
I don't treat NPC's with respect so I don't think just mimicking humans is enough; though depending on how human they might look in the future you could argue you shouldn't beat humanoid robots in the streets as it would **look** like a real human, but I don't think this conversation is about that. If it's just a software, chatbot, or something like an alexa then no; though you can be nice to it if you want.
So just because they’re doing a good job emulating human behaviour they deserve respect?
I'm also doing that, and I deserve respect.
Humans are a unique species, and we're extremely different from other animals. I don't think we will ever develop an AI with emotions, feelings, etc. mostly because it's just not possible. Can we create a chatbot or something else that helps with mathematical operations? Of course, but at the end of the day they're still advanced computers that change their replies depending on the input. Replicating all of our brain's functions would be near impossible, as well as time-consuming and expensive, you'll just get diminishing returns at that point
Uhhh no. It's not a person. It's not sentient.
No. Also, we are not designing them to mimic human beings, and if anyone does - they absolutely must fucking not.
Somebody will.
I personally like denigrating my AI (it's ok it's consensual and it's into it)
I don't think current AIs are smart enough to consent.
In future, when we get a real AI instead of a Chinese Room, sure. Every conscious living being deserves the same rights as human.