kbrkbr

That's one opinion out of many. Some say so, some say so.

But you did not answer my question on how we talk about ethics in terms of actions and brain scans.

The devil is in the details, and when you try to express why it is bad to kill people over a small argument in terms of actions etc., then you might find that this is not as simple as you insinuated.

"There is no 'ethic' in nature" is also easy said in the armchair, but becomes a lifeless abstraction pretty fast when confronted with real human suffering and tears.

I disagree. You can sense something using a thermostat. The thermostat is just a tool based on a functional relationship. "Sensing" has no literal, unequivocal use here.

That already presupposes a very narrow idea of what's meaningful that is quite far away from everyday life, where we talk about and evaluate subjective experiences all the time.

How do we talk about ethics in terms of actions, reactions abd brain scans please? That looks like an uncovered check.

In what sense are they a shorthand for actions in the world?

> "brain can sense the world around the entity, react to changes, and act or plan actions"

vs

> "implements a person, or point of view, or subjectively aware entity that supervises experiencing"

I think you are making a distinction without a difference. "Sense the world", "act", "plan" - that can only figuratively attributed to "the brain".

The concepts are already tied to what is named in the second opposition.

But what happens here, let me point that out for completeness, is not a dark conspiracy. At least not on this level.

People go to the grocery store and buy the cheapest thing that does the trick, probably because they can't afford something else. Bills want to be payed.

What is dishonest about asking for clarification of submission criteria that are utterly unclear?

> Help us to signify and share projects done by humans (not AI).

Here is nothing about GenAI specifically.

Who else could be asked if not the ones that set up this collection?

But isn't on the other hand the current AGI problem posed similar to the question "Are you not afraid that genetic engineers grow babies with bigger and bigger brains?" We don't know if that won't break down somewhere. Looking at different examples it probably will. Scaling things infinitely is a pure math only concept it seems.

From my point of view we have simply no idea what a infinitely smart AGI is and how to build it.

How would it make the combinatorial explosion in state space search go away, to pick one example?

And if it doesn't, is it then an infinitely smart AGI?

The concept seems to assume all problems humans struggle with can be solved. The halting problem is one witness that this is probably not true.

> if a robot has a complicated enough internal representation of the world, it may very well develop a concept of love

There are two concepts of "may" at play here:

"may" in the sense of "nothing keeps us from imagining this", and in the sense of "we know how it works, and it can happen".

A car may crash, and glass may break are the latter.

But for the former we actually have no idea how this could work. That is what makes it a hard philosophical problem. That kind of "may" is cheap.

But does the robot identify them in your view, or in its view?

If in your view, then you created a tool for yourself. Like a Geiger counter.

If in its view, ask it what it thinks about consciousness and qualia.