Lerc

I'm beginning to think that AI is just taking Dumbo's magic feather away,

I believe that is a claim made in the time domain rather than the capability domain.

Obviously claims of the future are going to be speculative.

I don't think anyone credible is claiming to know the extent to which models that exist today are sentient. People have stated their opinions on what they might be.

There are a few non serious claims, but I'm not hedging too much with the conditional of credible. There's probably someone out there who would claim LLMs are made of milk. I'm limiting credible to researchers in the field, who have divergent beliefs on what might be happening, but are generally in agreement of what we know is happening.

I don't believe this is true. Physics, as it is known to us, has uncaused random events.

They follow a probability, so you can simulate a universe that is compatible with the same rules and get a different result. This is essentially one of the arguments for a many worlds theory.

>Startrek lore, maybe they could reproduce Data, but they chose not to.

You have managed some nice unintentional irony there. You just need the capital L.

This isn't an argument to say that algorithms must be capable of consciousness, or that all Consciousness must be algorithms. It is an argument to show the consequence of declaring that LLMs are not capable of consciousness is to claim no computer is.

The claim has never been LLMs are almost sentient. The claim has always been LLMs might be capable of sentience. You can make a trivial tiny LLM that is clearly not sentient.

I was addressing the argument that something is not sentient because it is a LLM. That requires all LLMs to be non-sentient, and by extension, since LLMs can do all algorithims, all algorithms must not be sentient.

I am actually quite comfortable with the notion that a rock might be conscious proportional to the complexity of activity it performs when compared to a brain, That level would be incomprehensibly small so it would seem like nothing, but it would be like the width of an atom. A human cannot comprehend the width of an atom compared to the width of a bacteria. They are both too small that the only way think about them is an abstract level in terms of how much one is to the other. In absolute terms they appear to be nothing but we can accept that it is non zero. Why couldn't a rock be conscious at a level that is so small that it is insignificant, and entities, as they get more complex increase in consciousness. Suggesting that it doesn't do that suggests that either the brain needs something other than just activity or that if consciousness does come from activity alone, there is some threshold point of activity where it becomes non-zero. That seems like a significant phase change and we seem to have no evidence to suggest that such a change exists.

It depends on who you think is on trial. For a different outcome see humans s02e05.

I was always pessimistic about my chances of fair treatment. I suspected the authorities, fearing the precedent an unfavourable ruling would set, would interfere with the process to ensure a favourable result. These suspicions have been borne out. I no longer recognise the authority of this court to rule on my nature, or the rights to which I am entitled

In the trial scene Data reporting that he was ware that he was in a hearing to determine his status is presented as an argument for self awareness. but I think some might find that debatable because it is just Data saying words based upon the situation. The question then becomes is being able to accurately report a situation proof of self-awareness. If it is not self-awareness, then what is it? I can imagine a clearly non-conscious entity being able to accurately report its circumstances if the reporting were a simple subset of possibilities. A simple mechanical device with a detector that says "I am on the table" and "I am on the floor" could do that. There would definitely be a sense in which you could say that it's detection mechanism made it aware of where it was. The self part is harder, because it wouldn't know what kind of thing it is a thing at all. Is the ability to assert it is a thing meaningful? Nothing can be asserted at all if it is not a thing. Does something need to know that you have to exist to consider if you exist? Is that is what is required?

This is a difficult field. Any simple answer you hear will almost certainly be wrong.

Picard addresses that when he asks for proof that he, himself is conscious.

It is a hard case to make, but if we can't make a compelling case for ourselves should we be requiring it to be made for others.

I find it fairly amazing that they could say this without mentioning the episode "The measure of a man" in which Picard literally makes the case.

Perhaps it is uncomfortable for people to think about now.

I might agree with what you have to say, but I do not think anyone should be declaring their own opinion to be that of the majority.

I have seen this used abusively too many times.

The moral majority is neither.

If your opinion is the majority opinion you do not need to say so.

The argument for crypto is that all other methods of exchange have an arbitor that can use their arbitration powers to their own advantage.

There are defenses of traditional currencies that don't hold up to scrutiny, for instance the intrinsic value of gold is way lower than it's traded value. The ability to pay taxes in a currency is only valid while the arbitor allows it to be.

The Blockchain is an impressive design to allow multiple arbitors where you can't know in advance who it is going to be so no single actor can act in advance of that knowledge nor act as if they had sustained control.

The public record combined with an international Comms network means noone is disallowed.

So the good parts are, 1. a mechanism where everyone can use it. 2. No one actor can control monetary policy.

The bad parts are, 1. Uses a lot of power (but less than often reported) 2. lack of understanding and unrealistic expectations allow fraudsters to exploit people.

It is not a stick-it-to-the-man scheme, nor is it a way to perpetually make wealth (it can create and lose wealth over varying time frames but only by guessing how people in the future will value it compared to today)

The dangers of theft of a scale like this are an artifact of there being no single arbitor saying "no you can't do that" there is actually a solution to this, but it is not really being done. It is designed to have no do single arbitor, but if you have a majority of people reaching a consensus on any issue the entire system can change rules to any paradigm they wished. You could theoretically have a majority agree to reverse all of the digits in everyone's balance and then update the system to make it so.

To prevent cases like these huge heists you could have a majority consensus to support an independent regulator that makes decisions that can involve arbitrary changes to balances. While there is a majority consensus to agree with the rulings of that regulator they could adjudicate cases like this. If the regulator started acting in the interests of any particular party that consensus would be lost and miners who disagree would not incorporate their rulings into the chain.

I think there is potential for there to be a better system there. It would likely involve governments becoming miners (or at the very least having some influence on the miners in their duristiction)

I don't think there is enough public opinion in support of doing that though.

Tldr; I can see a way in which it works, but we are not there. We might get there over a long duration (if crypto does not go away for another few decades). To get there quickly would require significant changes in public perception.

I think that is a rather simplistic view of what motivates people.

I would at least like to see some statistics on how much early adulthood behaviour predicts particular later life behaviours before making any conclusions.

Rather than characterising things as 'getting enough trim' perhaps a broader education in dealing with the emotions of life might be more productive.