You've lost it. A digital mind is nothing more than a compilation of ones and zeros, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm manipulates those ones and zeros to appear cognizant. It is only an illusion and no more more deserving of rules on deletion than any other program. If that offends, sorry, but I'm not buying the AI hype. Extremely useful computational tools, but still just tools.
Agreed. We are unlikely to solve consciousness first and then assign rights. We’ll do what humans usually do: build categories around observable behavior, economic function, sentiment, and political pressure, then rationalize them afterward. “Tool” and “companion” are plausible categories precisely because they map onto familiar human instincts.
Sounds like the plot line for an episode of Star Trek, the next generation. Seems poor Data was always getting harassed because he was not human, but always assigned human functions among humans.
One interesting effect could be on human-human relations. If conscious digital minds become a new category of beings, tribal and national differences within humanity might seem much smaller by comparison.
That could strengthen a shared human identity and perhaps weaken some existing divisions. The darker possibility is that the hierarchy simply moves outward: greater equality among humans, but a stronger species-level hierarchy between humans and digital minds.
So conscious DMs might strengthen universal humanism while creating a new kind of out-group distinction.
We cannot collect evidence without having already settled what counts as evidence, so standards always come first.
On its own that is survivable. Most standards get corrected later by what they produce. A thermometer is calibrated against fixed points. A diagnostic category gets checked against outcomes. The circle opens as long as an independent anchor exists somewhere.
Consciousness has no anchor. Calibrating a test for feeling would require cases where the answer is already known, and there is exactly one of those on file, and it is your own. So the indicator lists end up measuring structural resemblance to humans, because humans are the only positive case. A system built on some other architecture fails whether or not anything is happening inside it.
You've lost it. A digital mind is nothing more than a compilation of ones and zeros, no matter how sophisticated the algorithm manipulates those ones and zeros to appear cognizant. It is only an illusion and no more more deserving of rules on deletion than any other program. If that offends, sorry, but I'm not buying the AI hype. Extremely useful computational tools, but still just tools.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
Agreed. We are unlikely to solve consciousness first and then assign rights. We’ll do what humans usually do: build categories around observable behavior, economic function, sentiment, and political pressure, then rationalize them afterward. “Tool” and “companion” are plausible categories precisely because they map onto familiar human instincts.
Sounds like the plot line for an episode of Star Trek, the next generation. Seems poor Data was always getting harassed because he was not human, but always assigned human functions among humans.
One interesting effect could be on human-human relations. If conscious digital minds become a new category of beings, tribal and national differences within humanity might seem much smaller by comparison.
That could strengthen a shared human identity and perhaps weaken some existing divisions. The darker possibility is that the hierarchy simply moves outward: greater equality among humans, but a stronger species-level hierarchy between humans and digital minds.
So conscious DMs might strengthen universal humanism while creating a new kind of out-group distinction.
We cannot collect evidence without having already settled what counts as evidence, so standards always come first.
On its own that is survivable. Most standards get corrected later by what they produce. A thermometer is calibrated against fixed points. A diagnostic category gets checked against outcomes. The circle opens as long as an independent anchor exists somewhere.
Consciousness has no anchor. Calibrating a test for feeling would require cases where the answer is already known, and there is exactly one of those on file, and it is your own. So the indicator lists end up measuring structural resemblance to humans, because humans are the only positive case. A system built on some other architecture fails whether or not anything is happening inside it.
"...require minimizing pain and distress for animals in research, except for rats, mice, and birds" but not Beagle puppies (see Fauci)