Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:40 pmYou're the one who introduced Chomsky's take on AI.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:29 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 1:49 pm An interesting quote from José Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1930) (Offered specifically to Dubious to help with his (often) blocked bowels).

TO START WITH, we are what our world invites us to be, and the basic features of our soul are impressed upon it by the form of its surroundings as in a mould. Naturally, for our life is no other than our relations with the world around. The general aspect which it presents to us will form the general aspect of our own life. It is for this reason that I stress so much the observation that the world into which the masses of to-day have been born displays features radically new to history.

Whereas in past times life for the average man meant finding all around him difficulties, dangers, want, limitations of his destiny, dependence, the new world appears as a sphere of practically limitless possibilities, safe, and independent of anyone. Based on this primary and lasting impression, the mind of every contemporary man will be formed, just as previous minds were formed on the opposite impression. For that basic impression becomes an interior voice which ceaselessly utters certain words in the depths of each individual, and tenaciously suggests to him a definition of life which is, at the same time, a moral imperative. And if the traditional sentiment whispered:

“To live is to feel oneself limited, and therefore to have to count with that which limits us,” the newest voice shouts: “To live is to meet with no limitation whatever and, consequently, to abandon oneself calmly to one's self. Practically nothing is impossible, nothing is dangerous, and, in principle, nobody is superior to anybody."

This basic experience completely modifies the traditional, persistent structure of the mass-man. For the latter always felt himself, by his nature, confronted with material limitations and higher social powers. Such, in his eyes, was life. If he succeeded in improving his situation, if he climbed the social ladder, he attributed this to a piece of fortune which was favourable to him in particular. And if not to this, then to an enormous effort, of which he knew well what it had cost him. In both cases it was a question of an exception to the general character of life and the world; an exception which, as such, was due to some very special cause.

But the modern mass finds complete freedom as its natural, established condition, without any special cause for it. Nothing from outside incites it to recognise limits to itself and, consequently, to refer at all times to other authorities higher than itself. Until lately, the Chinese peasant believed that the welfare of his existence depended on the private virtues which the Emperor was pleased to possess. Therefore, his life was constantly related to this supreme authority on which it depended. But the man we are now analysing accustoms himself not to appeal from his own to any authority outside him. He is satisfied with himself exactly as he is. Ingenuously, without any need of being vain, as the most natural thing in the world, he will tend to consider and affirm as good everything he finds within himself: opinions, appetites, preferences, tastes. Why not, if, as we have seen, nothing and nobody force him to realise that he is a second-class man, subject to many limitations, incapable of creating or conserving that very organisation which gives his life the fullness and contentedness on which he bases this assertion of his personality?

Because my primary interest turns around what is going on around us every day, and how we confront, think about and interpret what is going on in our world, I came under the influence of Ortega y Gasset's view of the 'vertical rise of the barbarian' (though that is not his own term). It is important to state that this 'mass man', defined negatively, is not a man of a particular class. On the contrary, he asserts, this man has pressed himself everywhere, including into the upper echelons. I do not think we have to look too far in our own world to be able to pick out such a vulgar figure (hint, hint).

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:30 am That's why I say you seem incapable of applying any kind of analysis being simply a spectator to the thoughts of others based on what you regard as exceptional or revelatory.

One can quite easily question each of the paragraphs quoted but to do it with someone like you is not unlike you arguing with IC on the intransigence of his beliefs.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:30 am Consider the immensity of changes which took place since then not only technologically and geopolitically but psychologically.

What's quoted certainly makes some good points but what was, or once imagined requires a major revision now! We're not talking metaphysics which seldom requires an update.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:30 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:29 pm

E4788077-1C0D-4EE5-B4CE-F568A9AF93BF.png

Consciousness is Not Computational and Not Controllable

Finally, let’s look at the lower-right quadrant. Again, we assume that the computational theory of mind is incorrect. But now we also assume that humans have libertarian free will. We are something truly special: the conscious authors of our own stories. We are creatures with insights, intuitions, feelings, and volitional capacities that cannot be replicated by computation. This is the quadrant that I personally believe is true (EDIT: me too...)

Of course, readers of Less Wrong would call this the “woo woo” or “pseudoscience” quadrant, since it foolishly rejects the reductive materialism that (they believe) underlies science. Religious and spiritual minded thinkers would consider it a wise rejection of reductive materialism. Average people just live their lives as if this quadrant were true, and react to new developments in AI as if it were true.

If this quadrant is correct, then AI cannot ever have a mind, no matter how good its learning model or how big its neural network. It can, at best, simulate the appearance of having a mind. That is the point of John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment: An AI can only ever be a philosophical zombie, without understanding or intentionality.

If this quadrant is correct, AI can’t replace us because we’re special in a way it never will be. In a sense, that’s good news.

Unfortunately, the people making AI don’t think this quadrant is true. (Re-read the reductivism of Less Wrong!) And we can’t ever prove it to them. Nothing I or anyone else could ever say or do could persuade someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky that I’m non-algorithmic and free-willed; I could only demonstrate to him that I say I’m non-algorithmic and free-willed. But a computer could be programmed to say that, too.

And that’s very bad news. Why do I say that?

Well, imagine that humanity moves forward with AI development without solving the AI alignment problem, and creates an advanced AI that eliminates us all.

Now imagine that the upper-left quadrant is correct. If so, then the elimination of our species is no big deal. If an advanced AI replaces humanity, all that’s happened is that… a new deterministic system that is superior at computation has replaced an old deterministic system that was inferior at it. As chilling as this sounds, I have spoken to several AI developers who hold precisely this view — and are proud to be working on humanity’s successors. If you accept the nihilism inherent in reductive materialism, it makes perfect sense.

In contrast, imagine that our lower-right quadrant is correct. If so, then eliminating our species is eliminating something unique and special. If an advanced AI replaces humanity, then beauty, goodness, and life itself have been extinguished in favor of soulless machinery. This is an absolutely horrific ending — in fact, the worst possible outcome that can be conceived.

If this quadrant is true, then we’re not just summoning a genie to grant our wishes, we’re summoning a soulless demon, an undead construct. The AI black box is black because its black magic, and we shouldn’t touch it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossu ... in_Project

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:40 pmWhat about the upper right quadrant, Henry?

Is the upper right quadrant not also possible? And is it not the ideal alternative to the other 3 quadrants?

So far I'm not following what you are getting at. Can you elaborate more?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:44 pm But if this quadrant is correct, then an advanced artificial intelligence cannot be aligned, not ever. Period, full stop. Remember, according to this quadrant, there’s no qualitative difference between our minds and the AI’s minds; both are just information processing. If sufficiently complex information processing creates free will for us, then it will do so for sufficiently advanced AI, too.[/i]

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:04 pmWhy do you see it as the case that if the upper right quadrant is correct, then AI "cannot be aligned, not ever"? what do you mean by "aligned"?

I'm also not seeing why you conclude that the quadrant means there is "no qualitative difference between our minds and AI's mind"? It seems to me that there is a VERY big difference between an AI mind and our minds.

Maybe I can't speak for everyone but I experience intangibles such as pain, pleasure, fear, calm and other things.

Theoretically, I suppose we could create a self-sustaining AI, one that is able to survive in the instance of a potential end to all organic life on Earth, but then one would have to wonder what the purpose of that would be. I mean, what would be the point in turning the Earth into a giant supercomputer, if there were no humans present to benefit from it?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 10:01 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 7:40 pmYou're the one who introduced Chomsky's take on AI.

Indeed I did. But whatever comment you make about his essay, or what values Chomsky has and expresses, if you are asking a question (?) I do not understand it. What you wrote just above, I don’t get. I think I do get what Chomsky says though. I’ve been reading him for a looooonnngggg time.

Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

Really, what's the difference between them if neither of them in a No God world is able...either philosophically or scientifically...to establish a moral assessment that could actually be demonstrated to encompass behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

Chomsky will no doubt suggest that capitalism reflects "a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge" as it pertains to rational and virtuous behaviors. Whereas the Libertarians and the Objectivists among us, while agreeing that philosophically, politically, morally there is an optimal frame of mind, will insist instead that this is precisely what capitalism encompasses.

So, Mr. Flesh and Blood human being or Mr. Chatbot...which is it?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:25 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 3:04 pmWhy do you see it as the case that if the upper right quadrant is correct, then AI "cannot be aligned, not ever"? what do you mean by "aligned"?

Please, Gary, read the full article.

I'm also not seeing why you conclude that the quadrant means there is "no qualitative difference between our minds and AI's mind"? It seems to me that there is a VERY big difference between an AI mind and our minds.

If mind is just computation, then it's just a program, an algorithm.

Maybe I can't speak for everyone but I experience intangibles such as pain, pleasure, fear, calm and other things.

Cuz you're not an algorithm.

Theoretically, I suppose we could create a self-sustaining AI, one that is able to survive in the instance of a potential end to all organic life on Earth, but then one would have to wonder what the purpose of that would be. I mean, what would be the point in turning the Earth into a giant supercomputer, if there were no humans present to benefit from it?

Read the article, Gary, then we can talk about it.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:07 pm Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:30 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 6:29 pm

E4788077-1C0D-4EE5-B4CE-F568A9AF93BF.png

Consciousness is Not Computational and Not Controllable

Finally, let’s look at the lower-right quadrant. Again, we assume that the computational theory of mind is incorrect. But now we also assume that humans have libertarian free will. We are something truly special: the conscious authors of our own stories. We are creatures with insights, intuitions, feelings, and volitional capacities that cannot be replicated by computation. This is the quadrant that I personally believe is true (EDIT: me too...)

Of course, readers of Less Wrong would call this the “woo woo” or “pseudoscience” quadrant, since it foolishly rejects the reductive materialism that (they believe) underlies science. Religious and spiritual minded thinkers would consider it a wise rejection of reductive materialism. Average people just live their lives as if this quadrant were true, and react to new developments in AI as if it were true.

If this quadrant is correct, then AI cannot ever have a mind, no matter how good its learning model or how big its neural network. It can, at best, simulate the appearance of having a mind. That is the point of John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment: An AI can only ever be a philosophical zombie, without understanding or intentionality.

If this quadrant is correct, AI can’t replace us because we’re special in a way it never will be. In a sense, that’s good news.

Unfortunately, the people making AI don’t think this quadrant is true. (Re-read the reductivism of Less Wrong!) And we can’t ever prove it to them. Nothing I or anyone else could ever say or do could persuade someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky that I’m non-algorithmic and free-willed; I could only demonstrate to him that I say I’m non-algorithmic and free-willed. But a computer could be programmed to say that, too.

And that’s very bad news. Why do I say that?

Well, imagine that humanity moves forward with AI development without solving the AI alignment problem, and creates an advanced AI that eliminates us all.

Now imagine that the upper-left quadrant is correct. If so, then the elimination of our species is no big deal. If an advanced AI replaces humanity, all that’s happened is that… a new deterministic system that is superior at computation has replaced an old deterministic system that was inferior at it. As chilling as this sounds, I have spoken to several AI developers who hold precisely this view — and are proud to be working on humanity’s successors. If you accept the nihilism inherent in reductive materialism, it makes perfect sense.

In contrast, imagine that our lower-right quadrant is correct. If so, then eliminating our species is eliminating something unique and special. If an advanced AI replaces humanity, then beauty, goodness, and life itself have been extinguished in favor of soulless machinery. This is an absolutely horrific ending — in fact, the worst possible outcome that can be conceived.

If this quadrant is true, then we’re not just summoning a genie to grant our wishes, we’re summoning a soulless demon, an undead construct. The AI black box is black because its black magic, and we shouldn’t touch it.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossu ... in_Project

Again, you can argue that an AI entity programmed by someone from the Northern European white stock would make more intelligent AI chatbots than those programmed by someone of the black, brown or red stock.

But either way it seems to me the science of race -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- has not provided us with anything that would confirm your own political prejudices. Prejudices that in my view are rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein.

Also, in regard to science and AI -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- there are many, many conflicting points of view.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:00 pmDoes that mean that a cheese sandwich is complex? Is it extremely controversial? Is it a source of conflict? Does it mean that it is beyond the understanding of "mere mortals"?