what I believe that truly separates us from AI is our consciousness and ability to experience life, feeling emotions and showing kindness. Coming to intellect, AI is becoming more and more advanced
I think no one had an answer to this yet. And that’s truly scary because it opens a chance for us to create systems capable of suffering without any understanding whatsoever that they are suffering.
Yes - agreed! I realise it's silly, if not misdirected, but I am inclined to be polite to and appreciative of the LLMs I use... just in case :P
But, back to the topic of your post and "what it means to be human"... if we can't confidently test whether or not it is "like something" to be a non-human thing, then does that undermine the argument that our experience of being "like something" is what sets us apart?
If I look at it from the usual, dualistic perspective that assumes that there are different living beings, it is indeed an assumption that others have an experience of being alive. In philosophy of mind it's called a philosophical zombie, and people far smarter than me have been arguing about it for ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). I indeed make this assumption because I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but I can't prove it.
However, if I look at the question from a non-dual perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism) that starts with the perspective and direct experience of simply being conscious without it being limited to the body, then there's just conscious experience and what from a dualistic perspective looks like different people (e.g. you and I), from a non-dual perspective looks like two different characters in a dream: yes, different characters, but fundamentally the same dream and the same conscious experience. If two people in my dream are having an argument, does it mean they have two different, separate consciousnesses? No, they aren't separate in the first place, it's all the same dream.
However, here I'm veering into things I'm only vaguely beginning to understand. So please take it not as some kind of what I think is definitely true, but how I currently think about it.
Thanks Evgeny, your thoughts and the articles were an interesting read which have provoked some ongoing thoughts of my own.
My own current and very naive thinking (unrelated to those articles) is this...
1. I struggle to believe that consciousness arises from anything other than the "right" configuration of matter.
2. I increasingly think we have little or no free will.
3. If we can't test whether it is "like something" to be a non-human / non-biological thing we have to be open to the possibility that... it might happen.
So what I see coming, for myself at least, is the realisation that we humans are not so special OR that if we want to find something that does make us special we'll have to look elsewhere.
I suspect I am way further out of my depth than you are :) ... but I felt compelled to think out loud here.
Thanks! I don't know if I would make argument in favour of strict determinism. My best guess and my sense of reality is that it's not the same as deterministic in a sense that only one version of the future is possible, but there's a certain degree of randomness at some very basic level. E.g. a quantum particle is described by a wave function and its measurements are fundamentally not deterministic. But I'm way out of my depth here, both from philosophy and quantum physics point of view. However, I don't see much room for any version of "free will" beyond it being a very convenient idea, much like imaginary numbers are very convenient in maths.
what I believe that truly separates us from AI is our consciousness and ability to experience life, feeling emotions and showing kindness. Coming to intellect, AI is becoming more and more advanced
How would we know if, at some point, it is "like something" to be an LLM or another form of AI?
I think no one had an answer to this yet. And that’s truly scary because it opens a chance for us to create systems capable of suffering without any understanding whatsoever that they are suffering.
Yes - agreed! I realise it's silly, if not misdirected, but I am inclined to be polite to and appreciative of the LLMs I use... just in case :P
But, back to the topic of your post and "what it means to be human"... if we can't confidently test whether or not it is "like something" to be a non-human thing, then does that undermine the argument that our experience of being "like something" is what sets us apart?
I tend to be polite, too :)
To answer your question, here are two thoughts.
If I look at it from the usual, dualistic perspective that assumes that there are different living beings, it is indeed an assumption that others have an experience of being alive. In philosophy of mind it's called a philosophical zombie, and people far smarter than me have been arguing about it for ages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). I indeed make this assumption because I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but I can't prove it.
However, if I look at the question from a non-dual perspective (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism) that starts with the perspective and direct experience of simply being conscious without it being limited to the body, then there's just conscious experience and what from a dualistic perspective looks like different people (e.g. you and I), from a non-dual perspective looks like two different characters in a dream: yes, different characters, but fundamentally the same dream and the same conscious experience. If two people in my dream are having an argument, does it mean they have two different, separate consciousnesses? No, they aren't separate in the first place, it's all the same dream.
However, here I'm veering into things I'm only vaguely beginning to understand. So please take it not as some kind of what I think is definitely true, but how I currently think about it.
Thanks Evgeny, your thoughts and the articles were an interesting read which have provoked some ongoing thoughts of my own.
My own current and very naive thinking (unrelated to those articles) is this...
1. I struggle to believe that consciousness arises from anything other than the "right" configuration of matter.
2. I increasingly think we have little or no free will.
3. If we can't test whether it is "like something" to be a non-human / non-biological thing we have to be open to the possibility that... it might happen.
So what I see coming, for myself at least, is the realisation that we humans are not so special OR that if we want to find something that does make us special we'll have to look elsewhere.
I suspect I am way further out of my depth than you are :) ... but I felt compelled to think out loud here.
Thanks for sharing! Check out this brilliant episode that covers much of what we’re discussing here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/76nBQHl2Dvh20qI8oSXv8O?si=1GyuBGtJQ6e0HMME4i4WFw&t=1286&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A2Shpxw7dPoxRJCdfFXTWLE
Thanks Evgeny! I enjoyed this episode and, you're right, it's super relevant here :)
It's great insight to reflect on. We're right but for the wrong reasons on how unlike LLMs we are.
Our behaviours are predictive: pre determined by all the prior interactions that came before.
At least that is the determinism argument.
What separates us is the "experience of being conscious [rather] than anything we’re conscious of"
Lovely.
Thanks! I don't know if I would make argument in favour of strict determinism. My best guess and my sense of reality is that it's not the same as deterministic in a sense that only one version of the future is possible, but there's a certain degree of randomness at some very basic level. E.g. a quantum particle is described by a wave function and its measurements are fundamentally not deterministic. But I'm way out of my depth here, both from philosophy and quantum physics point of view. However, I don't see much room for any version of "free will" beyond it being a very convenient idea, much like imaginary numbers are very convenient in maths.
Robery Sapolsky argues against a quantum physical explanation of free will: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Ebshc8Ls4 :)
I find his argument utterly convincing.