CommentToBeDeleted t1_j9qluo8 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 9:32 PM

Reply to comment by Alternative_Log3012 in What are ‘robot rights,’ and should AI chatbots have them? by HarpuasGhost

>There isn’t any possibility of true consciousness from a computer.

Imagine admitting we don't' know what consciousness is and yet still being absolutely certain that you can distinguish when something is or is not conscious. As if applying the qualifier "true" changes anything about that. You want to know what drivel looks like, there you go...

>Actually assigning rights to a computer itself shows a poor understanding of what a computer is…

Really depends on what you definition of computer is here. If you are assuming a calculator, phone or desktop, then sure, I would grant you that. But to assume you have any idea how the "black box" works within machine learning algorithms demonstrates your gross misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

The actual people who build these "machines" do not fully understand the logic behind much of the decision making being made. That's the entire reason we utilize machine learning.

It's crazy just how little humility people show in regards to this subject. My entire argument is that we don't know enough and need to better understand this and people somehow manage to have the hubris to think this problem is already solved.

Alternative_Log3012 t1_j9qoqm7 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 9:49 PM

Machine learning researchers and engineers understand the structure of their models, just not what each individual weighting is (there can be millions or more) for each simulated neuron, as these are found by a training process (which again is something known to the creator or team of creators) using known information.

The above process can literally be achieved by a complex calculator and is in no way deserving of ‘rights’

CommentToBeDeleted t1_j9qr1pt wrote on February 23, 2023 at 10:03 PM

Knowing the structure of your model and providing it training data is a far cry from understanding how it reaches it's conclusion.

> (there can be millions or more)

You just described how incredibly complicated a system can be, yet still attempt to argue my point about programmers not fully understanding the logic behind them.

> for each simulated neuron

It's fascinating that you would analogize the way it functions as imitating a neuron, then only later state that everything it can do, could be achieved by a calculator.

I don't think you and I will ever agree on this topic. You seem impossibly married to the idea that every single computer is analogous to a calculator. I view that argument as both ignorant and reductive. All attempts I've made haven't produced new arguments from you, but are instead met with heels in sand.

Still appreciate you taking the time to respond, I just don't see this as being a productive use of either of our time.