@EZ you asked about Steve T's presumptions behind his post. I have a good guess to the answer, but he can speak for himself. I will ask you a question about the presumptions behind what you wrote that he was reacting to. Do you think that because the State's Attorney is black that it is inconceivable that there is never racial bias in charges brought?
I don't. I have heard the following quote attributable to Jesse Jackson which has influenced my thinking on the subject:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
Change of subject on your “senior citizen” example. What struck me was this “geezer” had 50 or so cases on the books for what seem like violent crimes. I know the “three strikes and you’re out” laws had serious flaws, but 50??? At what point do we decide this man doesn’t deserve to roam freely amongst us?
Would it be possible for David L.. to give his opinions without slamming or stereotyping the left? I could very easily negatively stereotype the right. Then David would probably complain that not all it applies to him. Can he see the similarities? Besides, the so-called left is not denying law enforcement. They are asking it be more fairly and evenly applied. And yes, David, the people in black and brown communities want more help from the police. But the police and ShotSpotter are 2 different things.
Every adult Chicagoan should have no trouble remembering the names of the Great Lakes.
After all, we're right next to Lake Michigan & the other four are memorialized as four east/west streets parallel to each other: Superior, Huron, Erie, Ontario!
Do we need to define terms? Left, hard left, right, hard right, bipartisan, conservative, liberal so we are all on the same page?
Is Joe Biden stole the 2020 election a hard right position or a Trump cult position? Is support for the military a bipartisan position? Is opening up our southern border a hard left position or now a hard right position or the new Donald Trumper position?
If you support aid to the Ukraine, what are you? Liberal, bipartisan?
I tend to be a concrete guy and as these terms get thrown around I am a little confused.
If you are against gay marriage is that a hard right position, a conservative position or a bigot position?
Last, I find that my views do not fit into a single simple box. While the Trumpers can say my position is whatever Donald Trump says he wants. I find I have liberal views in some areas and conservative views on others. What box do I go into?
If we are going to box people in terms of right or left , let’s define terms before we gather information.
And maybe we should emphasize areas of agreement among folks rather than emphasizing our differences.
Your fix to Wordle is the same fix the did on Wheel of Fortune. Everyone chose RSTLNE. Now those are freebies. I don’t think it matters what word you choose, some days are better than others. Doesn’t need to be fixed.
Conceding that there is nothing mystical, like a soul, that differentiates a human from a machine, and granted that the answers to the philosophical questions are hard. Your assertion is that there is nothing unique about being a human consciousness, therefore AI machines are by definition able to achieve equality. And you further assert that they have already achieved some creativity and authorship that rivals humans. If there is nothing unique about being a human consciousness, then AI machines are by definition able to achieve full equality and superiority.
So, when does a machine consciousness have 'human' rights? If the answer is 'never', then what is the rationale for denying rights to an intelligent being? What rights are you willing to grant to AI's? What societal obligations are you willing to accept with respect to AIs? What authority are you willing to cede to AI's? When is the output of an AI no longer the responsibility of its creators? Do AI's have a right to free speech? Do AI's have ownership rights to their creations? Are AI's the property of human owners regardless of their level of consciousness? When do AI's have a right to freedom and self-preservation? Given reference to the low bar established by the elevated status of current AI capabilities, these questions are not far off. The questions of authority and autonomous operation are already at hand in drone warfare development. A foundation tenet that there is nothing unique in human qualities is a risky starting point for humans.
i thought 2 of the VTotW's were hilarious - the 'Valentine's' tweets - and neither ranked even in the top 2 at the time i voted. certainly underscores 'no accounting for taste' - incl'g [or especially] mine
Here is a poll idea. Is it ok, if the Chicago Tribune hires a person to toss ideas and questions to an AI, such that it can produce a weekly Zorn-esque column, with a realistic AI headshot, and a Derek Zurn byline? The person tossing the ideas and questions can probably be replaced with an AI that scans social media for topics in short order. Is that also, ok? Should they have to identify the 'author' as an AI? Are the opinions in the columns valid expressions of the AI?
Great VToTW crop this week, EZ! I hard a hard time choosing. As a practicing attorney, I almost voted for the (currently) leading tweet, but ended up selecting the Valentine's Day tweet because I LOVED the visual. All were top-notch this week.
Zorn writes: "What AI does isn't 'plagiarism,' it's synthesism — the program absorbs numerous images of flowers, say, and then generates an image that contains elements of whatever it has perceived as 'floral.' It's a lot like what human artists do, really. The fact that it's done with 1s and 0s in just moments instead of with neurons over a lifetime of experiences sets on fire the hair of those who think there is some mystical something about being human that means only humans can 'create.' I don't know the answers to what amounts to such philosophical questions as, 'What is consciousness?,' 'What is creativity?' and 'What is intelligence?' But it begs the question to say these qualities are uniquely human."
True, but the functional answers to those questions -- intelligence is as intelligence does -- seem inadequate so long as you can imagine a simulation that would not plausibly qualify. Suppose you're alone in a room, a person slips a question under the door written in Chinese characters, you scan the question in a computer in your room programmed to produce a plausible response, and you slip that response, also in Chinese characters, out to the Chinese speaker outside. To that person, you just conversed in Chinese and yet you speak not a word of Chinese. You obviously did not just converse in Chinese, notwithstanding the simulation of having done so. And yet you did just what the computer is doing. You matched some input gibberish with some matching output gibberish. (If it helps, imagine no computer and imagine that you're consulting a giant library of Chinese books and can do so very quickly; the point is the same.)
Does it make sense to say that you did any thinking in that scenario, beyond the confines of your minimal task? No. You comprehended neither the question nor the answer. I see my high school students do something similar, albeit with more thought, which is to say any, when it comes to difficult texts -- what they do when they don't get it. Sometimes they can fool you that they do get it by saying some words they think are right but which they don't really understand. I suggest that the AI is likewise fooling you that they get it. You didn't know what you were doing in the Chinese room. The AI likewise doesn't know what it's doing.
Are we not, at bottom, doing the same thing, just matching gibberish with gibberish? That's an interesting question to be sure, but if your answer is yes, then it commits you, it seems, to suggesting that the simulation of Chinese conversation in the Chinese room thought experiment -- first proposed by philosopher of mind John Searle in 1980 -- is in the same category, of the same quality, of the same fundamental nature, as actually conversing in Chinese. That strikes me as a leap.
We are meant to be impressed by the latest AI's "neural networks." And yet, it seems to me that it's not doing something fundamentally, which is to say philosophically, different from a Google search, albeit fixed up, chatbot style, with conversational syntax and capable of making more elaborate connections more quickly. It still seems like a simulation -- grabbing images of flowers from across its giant database based on a rapid scan without knowing what a flower is, anymore than a book of flowers knows what a flower is or you know that a given Chinese character means flower.
Aren't our minds just a bunch of switches, just 1s and 0s? If so, it would seem to suggest that one switch has one unit of mind. Philosopher David Chalmers takes this view. It commits one to believing, however, that a light switch is conscious, just a lot less so. Not sure I buy it!
One need not accept mysticism to recognize that there's a mystery here and that we haven't solved it. We've heard about artificial intelligence since the dawn of computers. (War Games is a fun film about an AI run amok, and it was made in the '80s.) The goalposts keep moving and what that means. I suspect that the latest incarnation will prove old hat and seem just as unimpressive as a computer that can play chess in some years' time, that we won't have made tremendous intellectual headway on the problem, and that the computer model of mind will continue to leave us unsatisfied.
@EZ you asked about Steve T's presumptions behind his post. I have a good guess to the answer, but he can speak for himself. I will ask you a question about the presumptions behind what you wrote that he was reacting to. Do you think that because the State's Attorney is black that it is inconceivable that there is never racial bias in charges brought?
I don't. I have heard the following quote attributable to Jesse Jackson which has influenced my thinking on the subject:
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
TRIES is a good starting word. Although I will consider the random start-word strategy.
The Nokia meme is funny but quite dated. A joke from back in that era: "I dropped my Nokia phone on the sidewalk, and it broke. The sidewalk, I mean."
"Late adult" is absurd. In some cultures, "late" means "dead"- which is what this idea should be.
Change of subject on your “senior citizen” example. What struck me was this “geezer” had 50 or so cases on the books for what seem like violent crimes. I know the “three strikes and you’re out” laws had serious flaws, but 50??? At what point do we decide this man doesn’t deserve to roam freely amongst us?
Would it be possible for David L.. to give his opinions without slamming or stereotyping the left? I could very easily negatively stereotype the right. Then David would probably complain that not all it applies to him. Can he see the similarities? Besides, the so-called left is not denying law enforcement. They are asking it be more fairly and evenly applied. And yes, David, the people in black and brown communities want more help from the police. But the police and ShotSpotter are 2 different things.
Every adult Chicagoan should have no trouble remembering the names of the Great Lakes.
After all, we're right next to Lake Michigan & the other four are memorialized as four east/west streets parallel to each other: Superior, Huron, Erie, Ontario!
Do we need to define terms? Left, hard left, right, hard right, bipartisan, conservative, liberal so we are all on the same page?
Is Joe Biden stole the 2020 election a hard right position or a Trump cult position? Is support for the military a bipartisan position? Is opening up our southern border a hard left position or now a hard right position or the new Donald Trumper position?
If you support aid to the Ukraine, what are you? Liberal, bipartisan?
I tend to be a concrete guy and as these terms get thrown around I am a little confused.
If you are against gay marriage is that a hard right position, a conservative position or a bigot position?
Last, I find that my views do not fit into a single simple box. While the Trumpers can say my position is whatever Donald Trump says he wants. I find I have liberal views in some areas and conservative views on others. What box do I go into?
If we are going to box people in terms of right or left , let’s define terms before we gather information.
And maybe we should emphasize areas of agreement among folks rather than emphasizing our differences.
Your fix to Wordle is the same fix the did on Wheel of Fortune. Everyone chose RSTLNE. Now those are freebies. I don’t think it matters what word you choose, some days are better than others. Doesn’t need to be fixed.
Conceding that there is nothing mystical, like a soul, that differentiates a human from a machine, and granted that the answers to the philosophical questions are hard. Your assertion is that there is nothing unique about being a human consciousness, therefore AI machines are by definition able to achieve equality. And you further assert that they have already achieved some creativity and authorship that rivals humans. If there is nothing unique about being a human consciousness, then AI machines are by definition able to achieve full equality and superiority.
So, when does a machine consciousness have 'human' rights? If the answer is 'never', then what is the rationale for denying rights to an intelligent being? What rights are you willing to grant to AI's? What societal obligations are you willing to accept with respect to AIs? What authority are you willing to cede to AI's? When is the output of an AI no longer the responsibility of its creators? Do AI's have a right to free speech? Do AI's have ownership rights to their creations? Are AI's the property of human owners regardless of their level of consciousness? When do AI's have a right to freedom and self-preservation? Given reference to the low bar established by the elevated status of current AI capabilities, these questions are not far off. The questions of authority and autonomous operation are already at hand in drone warfare development. A foundation tenet that there is nothing unique in human qualities is a risky starting point for humans.
i thought 2 of the VTotW's were hilarious - the 'Valentine's' tweets - and neither ranked even in the top 2 at the time i voted. certainly underscores 'no accounting for taste' - incl'g [or especially] mine
Here is a poll idea. Is it ok, if the Chicago Tribune hires a person to toss ideas and questions to an AI, such that it can produce a weekly Zorn-esque column, with a realistic AI headshot, and a Derek Zurn byline? The person tossing the ideas and questions can probably be replaced with an AI that scans social media for topics in short order. Is that also, ok? Should they have to identify the 'author' as an AI? Are the opinions in the columns valid expressions of the AI?
I don't know, Eric.
The last few weeks of visual tweets
have needed a checkbox that says,
None of the above.
Coming up on time for David and Joanie to think about starting their own newsletter.
Great VToTW crop this week, EZ! I hard a hard time choosing. As a practicing attorney, I almost voted for the (currently) leading tweet, but ended up selecting the Valentine's Day tweet because I LOVED the visual. All were top-notch this week.
Zorn writes: "What AI does isn't 'plagiarism,' it's synthesism — the program absorbs numerous images of flowers, say, and then generates an image that contains elements of whatever it has perceived as 'floral.' It's a lot like what human artists do, really. The fact that it's done with 1s and 0s in just moments instead of with neurons over a lifetime of experiences sets on fire the hair of those who think there is some mystical something about being human that means only humans can 'create.' I don't know the answers to what amounts to such philosophical questions as, 'What is consciousness?,' 'What is creativity?' and 'What is intelligence?' But it begs the question to say these qualities are uniquely human."
True, but the functional answers to those questions -- intelligence is as intelligence does -- seem inadequate so long as you can imagine a simulation that would not plausibly qualify. Suppose you're alone in a room, a person slips a question under the door written in Chinese characters, you scan the question in a computer in your room programmed to produce a plausible response, and you slip that response, also in Chinese characters, out to the Chinese speaker outside. To that person, you just conversed in Chinese and yet you speak not a word of Chinese. You obviously did not just converse in Chinese, notwithstanding the simulation of having done so. And yet you did just what the computer is doing. You matched some input gibberish with some matching output gibberish. (If it helps, imagine no computer and imagine that you're consulting a giant library of Chinese books and can do so very quickly; the point is the same.)
Does it make sense to say that you did any thinking in that scenario, beyond the confines of your minimal task? No. You comprehended neither the question nor the answer. I see my high school students do something similar, albeit with more thought, which is to say any, when it comes to difficult texts -- what they do when they don't get it. Sometimes they can fool you that they do get it by saying some words they think are right but which they don't really understand. I suggest that the AI is likewise fooling you that they get it. You didn't know what you were doing in the Chinese room. The AI likewise doesn't know what it's doing.
Are we not, at bottom, doing the same thing, just matching gibberish with gibberish? That's an interesting question to be sure, but if your answer is yes, then it commits you, it seems, to suggesting that the simulation of Chinese conversation in the Chinese room thought experiment -- first proposed by philosopher of mind John Searle in 1980 -- is in the same category, of the same quality, of the same fundamental nature, as actually conversing in Chinese. That strikes me as a leap.
We are meant to be impressed by the latest AI's "neural networks." And yet, it seems to me that it's not doing something fundamentally, which is to say philosophically, different from a Google search, albeit fixed up, chatbot style, with conversational syntax and capable of making more elaborate connections more quickly. It still seems like a simulation -- grabbing images of flowers from across its giant database based on a rapid scan without knowing what a flower is, anymore than a book of flowers knows what a flower is or you know that a given Chinese character means flower.
Aren't our minds just a bunch of switches, just 1s and 0s? If so, it would seem to suggest that one switch has one unit of mind. Philosopher David Chalmers takes this view. It commits one to believing, however, that a light switch is conscious, just a lot less so. Not sure I buy it!
One need not accept mysticism to recognize that there's a mystery here and that we haven't solved it. We've heard about artificial intelligence since the dawn of computers. (War Games is a fun film about an AI run amok, and it was made in the '80s.) The goalposts keep moving and what that means. I suspect that the latest incarnation will prove old hat and seem just as unimpressive as a computer that can play chess in some years' time, that we won't have made tremendous intellectual headway on the problem, and that the computer model of mind will continue to leave us unsatisfied.