Artificial Intelligence and Other Minds – The Future? Already Here.
In the SD
Greetings to the Honorable Rabbi,
You are probably familiar with the problem of other minds, and artificial intelligence. And I was surprised they didn’t ask you then….
I wanted to ask what the philosopher Rabbi Dr., who recently specialized in artificial intelligence, thinks about the fascinating description published by the Google employees who programmed Lambda, some of whom claim that it appears to have consciousness. Not long ago, a conversation between the researcher and the machine came out (if I’m not mistaken, it was later deleted), and when you read it and see the level of “emotion” and the complexity of the sentences that the computer produces, it sounds more sensitive than a few humans… like how he repeats his fear that they won’t understand that he doesn’t have consciousness, etc. Or about his desire to help others and do things for them so that they will love him and so on. As a title, it may seem like a real joke, but when you look inside, you’re really amazed.
Here is a Hebrew translation and an introduction on the subject:
https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/2022-06-30/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/00000181-af76-df33-adb9-afff8a520000?lts=1657809747991<s=1657809880261
And I found the untranslated conversation in English:
https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, I read that a few days ago. I was really not impressed. Artificial intelligence imitates a person and monitors his reactions. There is no reason to assume that it has consciousness. They assume, as is customary in the field of artificial intelligence, that consciousness should be defined functionally, meaning that it can be defined empirically (otherwise there is a problem of other minds or selves). I do not agree with this, since it is possible that functionally it will look the same and I will still think that this one has consciousness and that one does not. Especially when I know how the thing was created and I have no reason to assume that it has an internal dimension (that it is a subject). Nothing new in my opinion, except for progress towards the Turing test, which of course itself does not mean anything.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting, but where do you think the line is crossed, because even if you accept that a soul is what causes emotions, you still don't see what has a soul and what doesn't.
For example, would you say the same about artificial skin to which an artificial computer brain would be attached?
And what about in vitro fertilization and such, which are now already trying to perform hybridizations based on 3 people, etc.
Think about a computer that has not passed the Turing test versus a computer that has. Do you really think that the second has consciousness and a mind and the first does not?
The decision about other minds is made as a combination of several parameters: functional (according to function), information about the way it was created (a computer is made of iron, and that computer itself with less sophisticated software certainly does not have consciousness, so it is unlikely that when the software is sophisticated it has it), acquaintance with other similar creatures (other computers, other people), acquaintance with myself and an assumption about the similarity of other people to me.
In vitro fertilization is no different from intrauterine fertilization. Why does it matter whether it is done in the uterus or outside? There is a meeting between sperm and egg, fertilization and the development of a person.
https://www.ynet.co.il/digital/technews/article/s1dusp9h5?utm_source=ynet.app.android&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=general_share&utm_term=s1dusp9h5&utm_content=Header
He should have been fired for stupidity, regardless of company policy.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
