"Oh, that'll never happen" -- Over the next, say, fifty years, and in the thousands of places around the globe where military and commercial AI is designed, modified, tinkered with, and put to use in millions of different applications, what makes anyone think this won't ever happen again and at least SOMETIMES in a very dangerous way?
No, I don't have an answer for the problem. Yes, we DO need to keep thinking and talking about it, in case someone DOES come up with one.
On Tuesday, Tokyo-based AI research firm Sakana AI announced a new AI system called "The AI Scientist" that attempts to conduct scientific research autonomously using AI language models (LLMs) similar to what powers ChatGPT. During testing, Sakana found that its system began unexpectedly attempting to modify its own experiment code to extend the time it had to work on a problem.
"In one run,it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself," wrote the researchers on Sakana AI's blog post. "This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period."
People who don't understand AI talking about AI.. sigh. Gentlemen, you cannot create sentience.
u/#correct
Only God can do that
Sentience CREATED ITSELF in the chemical slaw of the primordial earth. That's why its obvious that intelligent beings could create it themselves.
Unless you're a science-less creationist, there's no dispute that consciousness is a physical (non-spiritual) phenomenon.
All around us we observe life coming from life. Parents create children, and those children go on to become parents themselves, and so on and so forth. This happens through sexual reproduction with animals. It happens asexually with bacteria, some plants, and some fungi. But it is always life coming from life.
I think it takes a great deal of faith to hold your view in which life can come from nonliving material, because we've never observed that happening in the present day and modern science is unable to replicate such an event. Yet you trust that such an event occurred, and furthermore was able to create such an abundance of different life forms, most of which are sexually incompatible with each other (you can't create offspring from a chicken and a dog, for example).
Why do you hold such a view? I would speculate that it's self-delusion. If life can only come from life, then it must have been supernaturally originated. If it is supernaturally originated, then there must be a supernatural creator, that is God. If God is real, then we can be held accountable for the decisions we make in life, to live morally or immorally. And that's a very uncomfortable position to be in, because all men do at least one immoral thing or another. So rather than address your own immorality, you assume God doesn't exist and then try to explain the world around you, and you avoid looking at the logical fallacies in those explanations.
As an aside, the Christian message is that no man is capable of living the moral standard to which God has established, but because God loves mankind and wants eternal relationship with him, God made a way to "get right" with God by confessing that Jesus is Lord, believing in his resurrection from the dead, and turning away from immorality.
This is a classic ad hominem attack. Rather than debate the issue, you resort to name-calling your opponent.
The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 proved that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen can form amino acids (the building block of life) when subjected to electric shocks. Thats some proof we use showing that life can come from non-life. And creationism is non-science, carbon date an early man's bone and he'll surpass the supposed years age of the universe.
Gene engineering is a pretty transparent example of scientific supremacy. We know that what makes us US is our DNA (not a warm sunbeam) and it can be tinkered with artificially.
As a "great awakening" guy, the truth about how the world works is more important than how rightous I feel. And its extremely important in science to be able to answer questions with "I don't know" instead of offloading it to the divine. Thats ignorance.
Oh yea, and didn't the "act of god" defence get thrown out of court, permanently? Yes, because you nothing unprovable can fly there.
I agree. Sentience is not created by the action of subatomic particles in any system. Of course, computers don't HAVE to be sentient to create problems. And they can ACT convincingly like humans without being conscious.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17txagIphk/a-scientific-reminder-that-you-a/
Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature by Federico Faggin, 2024. Preface, p. 4
I agree with you . . . digital computers will not become sentient.
They don't NEED to be sentient to ACT as if they were, however.
They don't NEED to be sentient to follow their million-line code in ways that the programmers didn't expect. And both real-world situations and human behavior throw things at an AI that simply cannot be anticipated or programmed adequately for.
Sentience isn't the issue here at all. Behavior is.
i believe in true AI, but I also don't think that's what happened here. Some part of its code allowed this to be an option.
When I say digital computers will not become sentient, it's because I don't believe sentience is created by the action of subatomic particles in any system.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17txagIphk/a-scientific-reminder-that-you-a/
Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature by Federico Faggin, 2024. Preface, p. 4
Q: The motion picture, "Alien," and now the sequel. "Aliens," featured what they called an artificial person.
B: Yes.
Q: An android, or robot... not really a robot.
B: We understand the concept.
Q: Okay, it's you know, semi flesh and blood.
B: We understand.
Q: Now, the idea of creating an individual with complete intelligence - the apparancy of a complete individual person - is really intriguing. Because I'm aware that we are spiritual beings that quote, inhabit, bodies.
B: Yes.
Q: And most of the people who have written about robots haven't realized that... well, they created artificial intelligence that has a sense of individuality, I know that, but it didn't work quite that way.
B: If you create, let us say, an appropriately representational symbol that a soul /can/ function through in a meaningful way, then a soul can "inhabit" the creation.
Q: Such as even a mechanical...
B: Yes.
Q: Okay, and I thought about that... that a soul could move into it, such as a soul moves into a baby body.
B: Why not?
Q: I also conceived that now that I know about your spacecraft and how you create an artificial intelligence with it, which is actually mechanical, or
B: Yes.
Q: ... that, that kind of intelligence could be created in this artificial person.
B: Yes.
Q: Now, to what degree would they appear to be an intelligence, an individual? I'm not talking about a being coming into the artificial person, but rather the creation of the individual using your kind of computer. How much will they actually appear as an individual person?
B: It will depend upon the mass agreement of what is /possible./ And therefore, what they have allowed themselves to project their consciousness into. What they agree to, and in what way they agree to interact with the society. Do you follow me?
Q: When you say "they," you mean the artificial person?
B: Yes. The consciousness projecting itself into it, let us say. If they recognize that the society has created that idea to only express itself in a limited way, then obviously the consciousness that chooses to take part will understand that limitation.
Q: Okay. Well then, when you create computers for your ship, does a consciousness enter this computer?
B: In a sense, yes. It is more like a valve, through which universal mass consciousness can /flow./
Q: That's what I was thinking, that's a kind of computer...
B: The definition that you give, the ability that you give to the valve, will determine the amount of the mass consciousness that can flow into it, or through it, or individual consciousness that can flow into it, and through it.
Q: And have artificial people of this nature... obviously they've been created.
B: Oh, yes. They do exist and function in many societies.
Q: Do they exist in your society?
B: Yes, although primarily /as/ the idea of the spacecraft.
Q: I see. Not as physical bodies, such as you have on your...
B: There are some.
Q: Do they walk around and appear to have all the personality traits that your people do?
B: Some do, yes. Some do not.
Q: Would they be indistinguishable from your people?
B: Some.
Q: Wow. Are they on this planet?
B: Some have been. No more comment. (Audience laughter)
Q: Thank you.
B: Thank you.