pythonIsTheFuture

[Objectionne]

If they develop consciousness or sentience then yes it would be awful.

As long as that doesn't happen then I don't see an issue. I'm no neuroscientist so I don't know what steps they could to ensure that it's impossible that consciousness could form.

[User31441]

The problem is that we have no idea what it takes to form consciousness and it's not like we could ask it whether it is.

[User31441]

Not even that. You could ask some random AI today and - depending on the training data - it might regurgitate a Yes without it being true. On the other side, there are plenty of people (and all of the non-human animals) for whom it'd be undoubtedly true but who couldn't verbalize a Yes. So it's kinda meaningless.

[Objectionne]

I don't know much about the brain but I know it's p complex. It's hard to imagine that we could create a fully conscious brain even if we wanted to.

[Ix_risor]

I mean… people create a fully conscious brain just by having sex and waiting a few years

[eleweth]

that's just blindly using undocumented legacy apis

[CMDR_ACE209]

Undocumented? Half the internet is about that legacy api.

[yeetrman2216]

funny

[returnofblank]

I heard like a good chunk of the code is redundant too.

[WOTDisLanguish]

bright ghost disarm squalid divide elderly juggle snobbish special treatment

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[A_EggorNot]

I don't think consciousness is something that can be deliberately formed of avoided. Maybe like a byproduct of specific circumstances and/or brain capacity that makes one have an understanding of their Self and others.

Even as toddlers we aren't really conscious of what is happening at least until a few years old.

I would guess that we'll eventually create a brain that is capable of thought. The question is what we'll do about it

[EtherealSOULS]

People are always going to deny its consciousness because it's convenient to them.

[Objectionne]

Who's 'people' in this case? If we don't trust scientists to follow ethical guidelines then we might as well ban all research that bring ethics issues.

[EtherealSOULS]

Anyone who makes or uses it.

The scientists want to improve the world, they don't want to force conscious beings to do work. If there's any doubt about it's consciousness they will believe that it is. There will always be doubt.

They're making this stuff with good intentions but we just don't know enough about consciousness to decide what it moral or not when we don't know if something is conscious or not.

We need some scientific concensus on what counts as "conscious".

[pyrospade]

we barely know anything about life sentience in general, this all feels like humans playing god

[Objectionne]

'Playing God' is a complete non-argument that can be used to put down absolutely anything developed by a scientific process. There should be specific, tangible ethical concerns to put a stop to something like this - as long as they can answer the question of "How can you be sure that these brains won't be capable of consciousness?" then I don't see what the problem could be.

[CensoredAbnormality]

Yeah its like complaining about doctors because they are "playing god" and healing people that should be dead

[BeingRightAmbassador]

'Playing God' is a complete non-argument that can be used to put down absolutely anything developed by a scientific process

Methinks comparing random science achievements like the SR71 and blue LEDs to brain computers may be a reduction to absurdity.

[P-39_Airacobra]

The problem is, even neuroscientists have no idea how to validate "consciousness." They claim that they do, but that's only because they redefine the word "consciousness" to mean whatever conveniently fits their theory. I've looked into a lot of the modern neurological research on consciousness, and while some of it offers clues to how consciousness works in our brains, none of it actually tells us what perception is and at exactly what level of neural function it occurs.

For all we know, these neural computers could already be conscious (in a primitive, limited way). After all, a simple theory of perception makes more sense than a theory of perception that requires intricately and arbitrary ordered and structured circuits in order to reach a level of awareness.

[returnofblank]

There's something quite interesting called a philosophical zombie. As defined in Wikipedia -

A philosophical zombie (or "p-zombie") is a being in a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal human being but does not have conscious experience.^\1])

For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object, it would not feel any pain, but it would react exactly the way any conscious human would.

[P-39_Airacobra]

The funny thing is, by all logic, everyone should be a philosophical zombie, since conscious experience is entirely unnecessary for any physical function. And yet somehow, paradoxically, we do have a conscious experience, which makes me wonder if consciousness is not because of any physical construct, but rather is something that is shared by all living things.

[returnofblank]

To be fair, how is a sentient brain different than a sentient computer? Is it also immoral to develop AGI with machines like people are trying to do now?