• Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not really talking about technical limitations, so I don’t know that there is a disagreement here at all. The solution could be 5 years away, or 50, who knows.

    I’m more pointing out that regardless of the exact techniques used, context is key to creating things that make sense, rather than things that are just shallow mimicry. I think that barrier cannot be breached without creating an actual intelligence, because we are fundamentally talking about meaning.

    And I agree these ethical considerations won’t slow people down. That’s what I’m concerned about. People will be so focussed on making better tools that they will be very keen to overlook the fact that they’re creating personalities purely to enslave them.

    • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not really talking about technical limitations

      Even in the case of ostensibly fundamental obstacles, the moment we can effortlessly brute force our way around, they become effectively irrelevant. In other words, if consciousness does emerge from complexity, then it is perfectly sensible to view the shortcomings you mention as technical in nature.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I am only talking about those limitations inasmuch as they interact with philosophy and ethics.

        I don’t know what your point is. ML models can become conscious given enough complexity? Sure. That’s the premise of what I’m saying. I’m talking about what that means.

        • emptiestplace@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Solid edit. If I found myself confused about the context of the discussion, I wouldn’t try to resolve it with “I don’t know what your point is”.