I don’t really think so. I am not really sure why, but my gut feeling is that being good at impersonating a human being in text conversation doesn’t mean you’re closer to creating a real AI.

  • Ferk
    2·
    2 years ago

    Oh but I agree that assuming our reality is solipsist isn’t useful for practical purposes. I’m just highlighting the fact that we do not know. We don’t have enough data preciselly because there are many things related to consciousness that we cannot test.

    Personally I think that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and acts like a duck then it probably is a duck (and that’s what the studies you are referencing generally need to assume). Which is why, in my opinion, the turing test is a valid approach (and other tests with the same philosophy).

    Disregarding turing-like tests and at the same time assuming that only humans are capable of having “a soul” is imho harder to defend, because it requires additional assumptions. I think it’s easier to assume that either duck-likes are ducks or that we are in a simulation. Personally I’m skeptical on both and I just side with the duck test because it’s the more pragmatic approach.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
      2·
      2 years ago

      I agree that we should always give systems that act as if they’re conscious and self aware . the benefit of the doubt. That’s the only ethical approach in my opinion.

      As you note, we still lack the understanding of how consciousness arises and until we develop such understanding we can only guess whether a system is conscious or not based on its external behavior.