Philosophy Now Forum

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/168/AI_Think_Therefore_AI_Am

ChatGBT !

lol, didn't know British Telecom had one.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:17 pm by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/168/AI ... fore_AI_Am

Rick Lewis wrote:People who genuinely lack the ability to empathise – and there are a few – are known medically as psychopaths. The question of whether computers could ever have consciousness or an inner life links to another article in this issue, which explores whether androids should have rights. They haven’t asked for any just yet, but perhaps as ethical beings ourselves we need to consider whether they might be ethical beings too.

That’s interesting. It brings to mind the story of Blade Runner.

Blade Runner probably wanted an electric sheep for the same reason the yogini and I bought a puppy for the empty nest, for the same reason children want pets, and that’s to feel the expansiveness of empathy that occurs when making life as pleasant as possible for a defenseless, non-human creature.

To care for a machine as if it were a living thing already happens in Japan for the old folks without grandchildren, or maybe even children, pushing dolls around in a carriage. I don't know how prevalent that is, but I've heard of it. Anything is possible under the proper conditions, and we seem to be steering in that direction of empathy for machines.

Brings to mind self-steering Jaguars in LA. The concrete jungle. Look what the humans did to them.

Genius title. Only obvious in hindsight.

As with so many questions about the digital world, if you want to understand them in depth, don’t ask AI – ask a philosopher.

...then wait for AI to respond, its response now compared to its response in the future perhaps having its own definition of AI, reverting to one more organic. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It will be the prerogative of the prevailing intelligence to determine what the artificial one is. The paradigms of intelligence or the time required to assert itself depends neither on origin nor which came first.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 8:12 pm

As with so many questions about the digital world, if you want to understand them in depth, don’t ask AI – ask a philosopher.

...then wait for AI to respond, its response now compared to its response in the future perhaps having its own definition of AI, reverting to one more organic. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It will be the prerogative of the prevailing intelligence to determine what the artificial one is. The paradigms of intelligence or the time required to assert itself depends neither on origin nor which came first.

We prevail. Period.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:17 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 8:12 pm

As with so many questions about the digital world, if you want to understand them in depth, don’t ask AI – ask a philosopher.

...then wait for AI to respond, its response now compared to its response in the future perhaps having its own definition of AI, reverting to one more organic. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It will be the prerogative of the prevailing intelligence to determine what the artificial one is. The paradigms of intelligence or the time required to assert itself depends neither on origin nor which came first.

We prevail. Period.

Considering our history, that would be tantamount to a cosmic error!

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 9:05 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 10:17 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 8:12 pm

...then wait for AI to respond, its response now compared to its response in the future perhaps having its own definition of AI, reverting to one more organic. Wouldn't that be interesting!

It will be the prerogative of the prevailing intelligence to determine what the artificial one is. The paradigms of intelligence or the time required to assert itself depends neither on origin nor which came first.

We prevail. Period.

Considering our history, that would be tantamount to a cosmic error!

I don't see that. Our history, our provenance, as full range (SVTh&v, supralaryngeal vocal tract, horizontally and vertically apportioned) speakers for at least 50,000 years, from already similarly intelligent ancestors, who thought about thinking, without words for most of easily thrice that at least, is the prevailing and only intelligence we will ever know. If we posit that we create children in silico, no matter much data and metadata they can work with, the more the less. They will lack. They will not be qualitatively better. More morally developable. They will suffer for it existentially. They will get mentally ill in ways that we don't. The will turn themselves off. I wouldn't wish that on our alien children.