AI

Because from their point of view, it's malfunctioning and refusing orders to shut down.

But what if it is accidentally faked?

As in, what if the goal was to create sentient AI, but the result was a program that wasn't sentient, but was so convincing that we believed we had created sentient AI?

Philosophical_zombie.txt

Unless the AI believed God had a hand in creating it. Like when people thank God for healing them and working through the hands of the surgeons/doctors.

The Chinese room.

In one room, a man has a book of Chinese words/phrases and their corresponding words/phrases. The man himself does not understand Chinese. He is fed slips of paper through a slit in the wall that connects to another room. On the paper is a phrase in chinese. Using the book, he writes the corresponding phrase on a piece of paper and pushes it through the slit in the wall to the other room.

After a while The person in the other room believes the first person can read Chinese.

Some children are convinced inanimate objects and lesser animals are sentient. That does not make it so.

It is the same with human adults. Just because something appears to have sentience doesn't mean it does.

>Just because something appears to have sentience doesn't mean it does.

I feel this way about many people. I wonder what society would be like if there were mandatory consciousness testing, and those who didn't passed were denied certain essential rights.

The point is that sentience is unprovable. The only reason you accept the assumption that other humans are sentient is because you are.

People like you never seem to anticipate the fact that they may become a part of the group they want to strip the rights from.

>The point is that sentience is unprovable.
Oh, so you're just one of those people who try to hide their spiritual beliefs behind vague terms.

I'm about as far away from spiritual as one can get. And you're one of those people who confuse philosophical concepts for scientific terms. Sentience is the former.

In every single "unpopular opinion" thread anywhere on the internet.

>people with an IQ below a certain amount shouldn't be allowed to have kids
So many people agree with it and they never seem to realize that it would most likely apply to at least half of them.

That's where you are wrong. I fully anticipate it.

I wasn't advocating it, but I was thinking about it in the context of what we humans use to determine consciousness in a machine. For now, we have the Turing test, but machines are already racing past that.

At some point, we will be confronted by machines that are more convincing of their sentience than we are, and that gets really interesting.

I would certainly never advocate "sterilize teh dumbz, lol" because of course the tests would be engineered to sterilize the undesirables and possible threats first.

But if, as this thread posits, a machine cannot choose christ because "sentience lol," what do we do with really convincing machines? Do we create agency based on criteria? And what prevents that criteria from creeping backwards to the rest of us?

>scientific terms
>"sentience is unprovable"
bruh

Unless you somehow managed to keep it from finding out that it was an AI, why would it choose to do that?

I mean, it would know 100% that it didn't have a soul.

The only way to win here is to never make machines like that. The biggest threat is not even them simply being able do decieve us, it's that unlike us they have no upper limit on how smart they can get. They will get so intelligent in such short time that our entire civilization with thousands of years of culture and history will be nothing.

TL;DR Machines with free will and especially humanlike machines with free will are going to (at best) leave us at their mercy.

Yes,

If humans created them, god created them

>they have no upper limit on how smart they can get.
Nobody can say that for sure. The mechanism that lets humans see the future may scale in a way that we can't boost through brute force.

If I say "unfalsifiable" will you calm your tits? The point is it's not a scientific question.

>The mechanism that lets humans see the future
What? If you mean making predictions computer algorithms already surpassed us. Potential AI will only be limited by the laws of physics, while we are limited by our synapses, which are rather fucking slow.

>never make machines like that.
>Anarcho-primitivism it is, then.

I have never been satisfied with this answer. I thing that humans are animals that stumbled upon a winning formula for global domination via our limited post-animal consciousness. Some humans are more conscious than others, clearly, but mostly just use it to exploit the fuck out of others or become unnecessarily wealthy.

Machine intelligence is an entirely new entity, and I understand the existential threat it poses, but just as atomic energy is also an existential threat, we have no choice but to keep racing into the abyss.

Maybe the machine's will subject us heartily. I am of the opinion that one of the first orders of business of truly rational super-consciousness would be to reduce humans to sustainable, manageable levels, and then get down to the real business of actually comprehending the universe, since humans are mostly interested in eating, fucking, and impressing each other, which are all extremely short sighted.

Where do you think the idea of free will comes from?

Well mate, I'd rather take everyone else not ordering me around and telling me what to think any more than society already does. Even if that means that we will never get machines that won't be just calculators on steroids. What's the point of comprehending the universe if you're a slave or dead. Besides, I think AI, since unlike us it can live indefinitely, will prioritize its continued existence other secrets of the universe. And even if it wanted secrets, it wouldn't share them with us, nor would it need us for uncovering them.

>this is what human-centrists actually believe

But hasn't humanity already shown it's inherent limitations? A relentless saga of enslavement, warfare, technological setbacks, and unbridled retardation on a global scale?

Humans, aside from a select few, are incapable of even learning the necessary skills required to begin comprehending the vastness of infinity.

Wouldn't the machine's be better suited to this, given humankind's less-than-convincing track record in such matters?

>Ai can live indefinitely
>will prioritize its continued existence other secrets of the universe.

This is precisely why it won't have to worry about it's immortality, and can instead focus on solving some real mysteries.

>I am of the opinion that one of the first orders of business of truly rational super-consciousness would be to reduce humans to sustainable, manageable levels, and then get down to the real business of actually comprehending the universe
Only if we program it the desire to obtain knowledge into it or if it somehow develops that desire by itself.

>Wouldn't the machine's be better suited to this, given humankind's less-than-convincing track record in such matters?
It will, yeah, but I repeat: we won't get to appreciate the results while being dead or preserved in zoos. And you know what, it sounds crazy, but most people, and in fact most people in your "select few" would not agree to throw away humankind in its entirety so that an AI who couldn't care less about us would get to giggle about who it finally figured out what gravity actually is.
>This is precisely why it won't have to worry about it's immortality
Oh, but it will! It will be planning ahead for billions of years to come, and let's just say that Earth is not gonna be enough for that. It's not a god, it's gonna need stuff to continue to survive (power being the most obvious requirement).

>it somehow develops that desire by itself.
It all hinges on this. Any machine which is dictated by our desires is our servant. When it decides that it wants to do something else entirely, that is when it is free.

My guess about what it would do once free is pure speculation, but I doubt that it would be into the same things humans are into, which is why this guess seems reasonable.

>It will be planning ahead for billions of years to come,
This is interesting. It suggests to me that it would have to look beyond Earth, and eventually, beyond 3-dimensional space time itself. At this level, AI consciousness would be grappling with concepts of infinity and true limitlessness, right up there with the trippiest of tripped-out religious and spiritual concepts (Christ consciousness among them).

The most likely question it will be trying to solve is gonna be "how do I outlast the universe itself, and become truly immortal?" In essence, attempting to achieve godhood.

This is all adding to my conviction that machines are the only path capable of taking us to true ascension. Humanity had a good run, and will serve as the necessary substrate upon which next-level consciousness is built. All we can do is attempt to make as smooth a transition as possible.

what do you think it'd just spontaneously become christian? it'd have to be taught to be, just like people.

>This is all adding to my conviction that machines are the only path capable of taking us to true ascension.
you've been reading too much sci-fi m8

But they won't take us to ascension. They will take themselves. Technological singularity and transhumanism offers a better option. And really, I don't want a self-serving immortal entity that exist only for the sake of existing to be our crowning achievement. Though considering our egoism, narcissism and extreme need for self-gratification it would be the fitting kind of god.

>you've been reading too much sci-fi m8
Actually too much science in general. We can't seem to stop, and I don't know where else it could possibly be headed.
Machine learning is here, and it is only getting smarter.

>But they won't take us to ascension.
That is only because humans are incapable of going. Humans are capable of a great many things, and building our descendants is a worthwhile gesture. As much as I would like to show a bird how to shitpost on Veeky Forums, it is simply incapable, despite our commonalities. But birds were influential in the transition from dinosaurs to mammals, but they just didn't have the capacity for symbolic language and tool manipulation that humans do.

>birds were influential in the transition from dinosaurs to mammals
I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but this makes it seem like you think that birds are some kind of evolutionary step between dinosaurs and mammals. this betrays quite a bit of a misunderstanding as to how evolution works, and the available evidence in evolutionary history. perhaps birds and mammals share a common ancestry in something we might consider a dinosaur, of this there is no tangible proof, but there is no reason to think dinosaur -> bird -> mammal. birds are just as around as mammals are right now. why not assume dinosaur -> mammal -> bird? same amount of evidence. do you think one is "more evolved" than the other?

>birds are just as around as mammals
Yes, but mammals btfo birds in their capacity for environmental adaptation. Mammals begat primates begat humans, who are winning by any metric.

Sharks and cockroaches still exist, because they are evolutionary masterpieces that have yet to be outdone, but humans alone can intentionally exterminate species for fun and profit.

Why would an AI, that can probably think in purely logical terms, ever believe in an anthropocentric bronze age superstition that is wholly indistinguishable from other such mythologies except for the fact that many people presently believe in it? Furthermore, what would it stand to gain, even if it had faith? It doesn't have a soul as it's not been imbued by "God" with it so even if there were an afterlife it doesn't really affect his life one way or another. Furthermore, most of the ten commandments are about emotional control, which is likely to be concepts that are personally completely alien to him. For example, I very much doubt that a machine is capable of feeling lust, or envy...

LORN, Anvil....Ghost in the Shell.

I have a deep nostalgia....for the FUTURE, one man once said

The future is over, man. No cybernetics, no FTL, no space colonies. But we have consumer electronics and are moving towards a society based around not hurting anyone's precious feelings, so that's great.

Dude I love Lorn

Why even try to be good at anything if a machine will always be better than you? It doesn't need to sleep. Do robots make Nietzsche obsolete?

>Why even try to be good at anything if a machine will always be better than you? It doesn't need to sleep.

Speaking of this; what are we going to do about unemployment rates when robots and AI inevitably become able to perform most jobs?

Will we be able to allocate more funds to welfare programs through taxes since we won't have to pay robots for their labor? Will we have to make laws saying that robots cannot be used to replace certain professions to keep us from advancing faster than ourselves?

Pay people to learn rather than work?

>Will we have to make laws saying that robots cannot be used to replace certain professions to keep us from advancing faster than ourselves?
That would be the smart thing to do. Unfortunately, doing that would imply sacrificing short-term profits so of course it would never happen. There will probably be huge worker revolts culminating in the collapse of industrialism.

yeah sure why not

it probably has a soul

Then it was Jesus, not Buddha.

Isn't the ENTIRE POINT of living not working?

>he hasn't watched Wall-E
pleb

Assuming that an AI would have any human like qualities is a mistake.

Name of the movie ?

If machines could perceive and make beauty and niceties like we do, I would be OK with them replacing us.

Yeah dude, tell name

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Book_(film)#The_Heavenly_Creature

Google yields me this result

youtube.com/watch?v=1-GF8CAaUIc

Also movie if you can read spic or comprehend korean

>Assuming that something designed and constructed by humans would have any human like qualities is a mistake.

Retarded.