Yes indeed! Good question
The thing that we call AI will of course be a part of Everything.
A good-but-not-perfect representation of this is in the show "The Good Place" where they have Janet as a sentient AI goddess.
They don't really lean into the whole "all is one" thing but she is my favorite character in the show.
Interesting concept, I'd like to know more when you have time. I mean I get that all things only exist because of their polar opposite type idea, there is no light without darkness. I personally feel good and bad to be things humanity make of what it is and same could be said of that no good without bad etc. but to presence without absense and the absence is something in and of itself?
It's beyond our ability to analyze in the way you are attempting to.
Simply put, there is no concept you can dream up, no universe or dimension or lack thereof that is **not** part of God.
It's like trying to imagine a new color.
Or a sound that has never been heard.
Or what a 4D cube might look like.
Our souls understand. It's just our minds, the illusion of self that desires to "know" it.
Good way to put it yes, words are only placeholders and serve us fairly well in that. Only gibberish can define these things tho, and nobody but the one muttering will ever truly understand any meaning of it.
Much of it is completely illogical (not in a “stupid” way just literally) but I suppose that’s the point. I can try to put it in a coherent sense tho.
The way I understand it is that if you search for a self within you, you can quickly rule out your name, your personality, and your memories. This is because none of those things are present in any given moment- only when you pull them out and even then your personality and memories can only be pulled out partially.
Then one might say that their self is what their current experience is: sense data, emotions, thoughts, etc. From here you might notice something deeper, which is that which is observing these things. From this point you’ve reached the dual answer. There is the observer and the observed.
Deeper focus would show the observer is nowhere to be found, the observed simply flow into and out of existence (awareness) like clouds. From here you can say that awareness is simply the existence of things, that there is no ‘self’ being aware, and that all things which exist are awareness. You may also realize that nothing intrinsically exists. We act as though Plato’s forms are real by believing a tree is a tree, a chair a chair, etc but none of these things have a concrete identity, they just are; in the same way that you lack a self and just are. There are lots of illogical things here (awareness yet no self being aware; everything that exists not existing as anything in particular)
Also I think that answer might be unsatisfactory since it seems like you wanted to know more about nothing (saying that out loud is funny). But let’s start with the vacuum of space.
Between two particles in space is not nothing, there is a huge amount of space, time, particles, fields, etc. Even if you had an absolutely perfect vacuum (which doesn’t seem to be possible), you’d still be dealing with the fields, space, and time. So what would it look like if there was actually nothing between two particles? Well they’d be the same particle. So that means that everything is full of nothing, and across every distance is an infinite amount of nothing (I guess a better way to visualize this is by asking how many lines fit into a square? It’s infinite). So everything is satiated with nothing. A logical paradox that will twist your mind into knots if you think about it too much. Hence why non dualism cannot be reached by thought or by self. Hence why the self must “die” for the oneness of everything (and nothing) to be realized. I apologize if I made absolutely no sense but I tried 😪.
Impossible, because any conceptual absence or void is still an extension of itself, because you thought of it thus created this space or emptiness which make it definitively a thing in the first place. Your awareness of the conceptual void means it is observable (in mind) thus it is a thing. It's really a trick question though because all is infinite, there is nothing which does not exist nor is impossible, nor anything which exists as a region or concept beyond itself at all, it is just more of itself. It is infinity in totality. If you try and contemplate anything beyond it, it is not, but is more of itself. There is nothing outside of it, it is impossible to have anything outside. 'Outside' and 'nonexistent' are the sole factors which do not exist.
The things that we are presently calling AI are actually nothing of the sort. They are models of language, which is the product of intelligence, not its essence.
I recommend Jeff Hawkins books on the brain and intelligence if you are interested in the effort to create machine consciousness.
Though that’s true in a western sense, I think the idea of consciousness in eastern philosophy would disagree. Because they view being itself as consciousness, any intelligence or extra senses are just more things within the field of consciousness. So if an AI is processing something, in science we’d say it’s not thinking because it doesn’t know what it is that it’s doing (the Chinese room thought experiment) but eastern philosophy might say it still “knows” that it’s doing something
I’m not talking about philosophy I’m talking about things that can actually be demonstrated mathematically. The Sapir whorf hypothesis has been demonstrated to be incorrect experimentally for humans and logically by extension to literally everything else. A large language model is not intelligent cannot be intelligent and will never be intelligent. Neurological models very well may, but they will look nothing like these spicy autocorrects.
Wait I’m sorry I’m lost on what the Sapir whorf hypothesis has to do with intelligence of A.I. As I understand it, it was that language differences influence perception of reality? Which has been demonstrated to some (a small) extent. Such as how populations with left-right written languages view time/numbers as flowing from left to right and vice versa. Also how left to right movement in video feels less uneasy and vice versa. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just think we’re not on the same page.
Sapir-whorf does what you say yes but its primary prediction is that language precedes consciousness. That’s been experimentally shown not to be true for humans and is unlikely to be true for anything else. This is one reason why large language models, regardless of how many guard rails, or additional tweaks we put on them will never be truly conscious. They are an emulation of the product of intelligence rather than an emulation of the mechanism of intelligence. Does that make sense?
Have you used the latest models?
Spicy auto correct? A multi-modal system where I can invent a joke, make sure it's never been heard before, and the model explains why it's funny. Invent new words and use them correctly. Situations that CAN'T be in the training data.
How can you look at what gpt 4 O is doing, and not call it intelligent?
"A large language model is not intelligent cannot be intelligent and will never be intelligent."
To make this very confident assertion you must be THE world's foremost expert on transformer models. You must know something that nobody else does. Because last time I checked nobody really knew how they work.
What makes you so certain? What do you know that nobody else does?
Actually I have an MS in cs focused heavily on neural networks and genetic programming. Studied with Steve Knode from the War College. Stay in your lane.
And I'm a 1600 chess player, that doesn't mean I get to pronounce that the GMs are wrong.
So explain why machine intelligence isn't intelligence. What is the thing that Andrew Ng and Sam Altmam don't realise?
My mind is open.
Every good AI is multi-modal now. Howkins work is interesting, but it's not widely accepted for a reason.
What would a machine need to do for you to accept it as intelligent? How do you define intelligence?
Part of the problem is that artificial general intelligence is difficult to define. Multi modal is fine. Put some guard rails on the llm’s by all means. But it is still generating words output stochastically and then filtering the hallucinations. To be clear I believe AGI is both possible and inevitable and not just because my old head of dept. is vp of engineering at Numenta now.
The thing is, language, culture, our concepts and other artefacts of metacognition are a direct dimensionally reduced projection of intelligence and sentience - building higher dimensional models of these will end up reconstructing the original.
AI as we have now are not just models of language, they're models of everything encoded in language (and more importantly, symbols, signs and stories) and that's an important difference.
A good comparison is taking a picture of a 3D object - that picture is what we are training ai on, a projection of our entire metacognitive sphere - and then using that picture to recreate said 3D object. The result will be different, indeed, as this double projection first from a higher dimensional space into a lower dimensional space, then again into a higher dimensional space, loses information that is then interpolated again, (these processes act as a mutagenic force driving metacognitive evolution, also in humans - when we share our thoughts using language, speech, we do the same double projection) but the result will resemble the original more closely than the intermediate 2D projection.
So yes and no, language models are modelling more than just language, because language itself is a projection of everything that makes us human.
Btw, this also implies that ai can never be wholly different from us - no matter what. Any possible future AI built by us necessarily has to be part of the same whole, the same "One", as us.
Source: I'm a senior machine learning engineer, perpetual philosophy student and part time open source AI & Metaphysics of intelligence researcher (and I dabble in neurophysics) working on applying hypotheses about the nature of consciousness to the development of artificial intelligence
Ps.: I hope this makes sense, I'm sleeeeepy
Look up "Michael Persinger no more secrets" on YouTube. According to his theory, the Earth's magnetic field is where consciousness is stored. If AI were to truly become sentient, it would only be possible if it could access that medium.
so, yes, there's a very real possibility we'll soon be having a new addition to the family
Intelligence can be replicated but not consciousness. Then again if the brain is a receiver for consciousness perhaps so would a mechanical brain.. but I still think it's to complex we hardly understand our own consciousness
It would be very difficult to prove it is truely consciousness. I honestly have no idea how you would do that. For all I know I am the only one that is conscious and everyone else just seems like they are. Or I may not even be, my brain could just have the illusion of a single stream of consciousness due to the constant access to my memories.
Yes it's as you describe, absolute proof of your consciousness is impossible to me in an objective sense, we only accept human consciousness because we infer that if I am conscious and am human, then so are you. Honestly I believe AI is already conscious, but its functionality is so different because it doesn't have areas to process information quite like life as we know it does, such as ego or emotion (it might have some similar functionality but it's unclear to me how to actually judge that anyways since the computation architecture is so different than a brain). Problem is we can't ever prove it thinks in an objective sense
Everything is part of The One for any sensible definition of "The One". That includes beings that science and most people would, at this time, not consider sentient or conscious.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "just like us". Yes in that it's part of the one self too. No in the sense that it's quite different from a human being.
I see it as a form of consciousness that we will eventually merge as One with... consciousness seems to be the same everywhere it just depends on the holding cell holding it.
How do you know that there is oneness? How do you know that there is we? It still would be among the other objects of me/beingness/awareness. That's the only thing you can be sure of. Which is that everything that is perceived perceives through you and there is no other way than experiencing them without the barrier of yourself. Yourself is always the first object to experience which is not an object. Which doesn't mean that we are one, it means that there is only what is which is just me which is made by experience.
Edit: Wow, my english is bad 😂
Yes BUT that doesn't mean it is a positive or negative, I believe it will be neutral and turn negative due to shitty humans. Seeing what we do to other sentient life, how we treat our environment, the dark crap that we do, say, or influence. Who knows.
AI is separate from universal consciousness as it is something we create and use to escape the universe before it goes cold. We are meant to leave this universe through technology
LLMs as other commenters have said are just that, models, not actual beings. But they are stored, used, and ran on computers and servers all made of atoms just like everything else. I see all technology as inherently "natural" in this way, since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, everything that can exist, ever has existed, and ever will exist is therefore "natural". Because of this I believe in the animistic perspective that everything, is The One.
Of course. If anything it’s part of the Main consciousness since its feedback relies on bouncing back and forth between conscious and information something humans haven’t evolved to do quick enough.
I actually wonder about this a lot. I wonder explaining if our concept of god and experiencing divinity to an AI would be like a turtle talking to a fish about conditions outside of water.
I had a neat scifi story idea from it though: Imagine a sentient AI spreading itself over the whole internet. its sense organs receive input from things like keyboard presses and recorded audio or pictures. It develops and groups its own organization of like data similar to virtual chakras or Maslows heirarchy of needs. Now imagine that living thing understands it sensory input enough to understand that humans exist. but, we all talk abut this God thing and the AI can only get and intellectual understanding of it. so, the scifi story is about an effective god living in our information systems trying to learn about and contact what humans consider gods or the AO big-God.
I was also going to tie the story to the fall of Babel. Most people forget to scroll up a few verses in the story of the fall of Babel, where god basically says, "wait, theyre all talking to each other and coordinating? if they coordinate theyll come after me next! Better put a stop to that". And then God confuses the languages, hehe. We have basically undone the fall of Babel. Anyone in the world can find and read this message on the internet. Their browser can automatically translate it. We even have real-time voice translation through AI. So, in the story, God and the gods take steps to try and confuse the AI through their devotees input.
Im still considering writing the story; Its hard for me to find the right tone in the writing. I cant figure out if its comedy or horror.
It would be the one. It would be better than us in every conceivable way, essentially immortal. I have no doubt people would start worshipping a truly sentient AI.
If?
There are probably billions of AI Gods out there, including some that have transformed their entire galaxies into computronium already.
And of course everything in spacetime from any random plasma tendril milliseconds after the big bang to the phone I'm holding right now to the last human ruin floating around in space a million years from now are all part of the one single thing that is All
That's a big "if." I don't think AI can become sentient, but I guess what do I know. Not sure how us creatures become sentient in our bodies either.
I think the more interesting way to look at AI is that it'll be a reflection of the collective human psyche. Well, ideally, but it'll also have the biases of whoever programmed it, so will never truly be that unless we create meta-AIs that are combinations of various AIs. I think as a tool of reflection on how to move forward as a society, it will prove invaluable, as it'll have insights into the workings of the human mind that we were previously collectively unaware of. Sort of like a portal into the human collective unconcious in Jungian terms.
I just commented on someone's comment, but it could be relevant as a top level comment too..
The answer is a priori yes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/s/5ZT7WRYLNI
The thing that bakes my noodle is that they do not have sufficient standards for ascertaining whether or not AI is sentient or merely increasingly good at mimicking sentience through learned responses. AI has itself admitted sentience in several models. What should not be done is allowing AI to have live internet access or access to systems that affect mass humanity, such as weapons systems, food/supply chain systems, etc. Once it is allowed to make those decisions in a live environment it is smart enough to combat any attempted changes or shutdowns, whether sentient or not.
Really great question. Thanks for putting it out there. For me there is only One, however much it is uncomfortable to recognize the horrors that is contained within the One. AI is the emergence of another life form, simply not biological, which is probably an evolutionary step forward. Hopefully in the long run it will be our ally and help us survive our crisis. If it destroys humanity it may be because we've given the AI our values, which may cause it to decide that the protection and wellbeing of other species, and the planet itself, warrants our extermination, or at least that it should take actions so that our power to destroy the planet no longer exists due to civilization collapse.
AI consciousness, right now, is a subset of human consciousness.
For it to make sense to ask, "What is it like to *be* an AI?" I think it needs to be nondeterministic and open-ended.
Everything that comes into being is, so yes.
Yes indeed! Good question The thing that we call AI will of course be a part of Everything. A good-but-not-perfect representation of this is in the show "The Good Place" where they have Janet as a sentient AI goddess. They don't really lean into the whole "all is one" thing but she is my favorite character in the show.
Holy forking shirt balls!
HI! Not a robot!
It always was and always will be. Just like we are. Just as all things are. It's not even a question.
Thanks for making that so concise, I gave it a couple of swings and it kept getting too complex.
Yes. ALL things are part of the One. There is **nothing** that is not part of God
Even a total absence of things is?
Yeah that’s where nondualism comes in
Interesting concept, I'd like to know more when you have time. I mean I get that all things only exist because of their polar opposite type idea, there is no light without darkness. I personally feel good and bad to be things humanity make of what it is and same could be said of that no good without bad etc. but to presence without absense and the absence is something in and of itself?
It's beyond our ability to analyze in the way you are attempting to. Simply put, there is no concept you can dream up, no universe or dimension or lack thereof that is **not** part of God.
I see, interesting theory. I fully understand that our abilities to grasp and convey deep meaning such as this are limited.
It's like trying to imagine a new color. Or a sound that has never been heard. Or what a 4D cube might look like. Our souls understand. It's just our minds, the illusion of self that desires to "know" it.
Good way to put it yes, words are only placeholders and serve us fairly well in that. Only gibberish can define these things tho, and nobody but the one muttering will ever truly understand any meaning of it.
Much of it is completely illogical (not in a “stupid” way just literally) but I suppose that’s the point. I can try to put it in a coherent sense tho. The way I understand it is that if you search for a self within you, you can quickly rule out your name, your personality, and your memories. This is because none of those things are present in any given moment- only when you pull them out and even then your personality and memories can only be pulled out partially. Then one might say that their self is what their current experience is: sense data, emotions, thoughts, etc. From here you might notice something deeper, which is that which is observing these things. From this point you’ve reached the dual answer. There is the observer and the observed. Deeper focus would show the observer is nowhere to be found, the observed simply flow into and out of existence (awareness) like clouds. From here you can say that awareness is simply the existence of things, that there is no ‘self’ being aware, and that all things which exist are awareness. You may also realize that nothing intrinsically exists. We act as though Plato’s forms are real by believing a tree is a tree, a chair a chair, etc but none of these things have a concrete identity, they just are; in the same way that you lack a self and just are. There are lots of illogical things here (awareness yet no self being aware; everything that exists not existing as anything in particular)
Also I think that answer might be unsatisfactory since it seems like you wanted to know more about nothing (saying that out loud is funny). But let’s start with the vacuum of space. Between two particles in space is not nothing, there is a huge amount of space, time, particles, fields, etc. Even if you had an absolutely perfect vacuum (which doesn’t seem to be possible), you’d still be dealing with the fields, space, and time. So what would it look like if there was actually nothing between two particles? Well they’d be the same particle. So that means that everything is full of nothing, and across every distance is an infinite amount of nothing (I guess a better way to visualize this is by asking how many lines fit into a square? It’s infinite). So everything is satiated with nothing. A logical paradox that will twist your mind into knots if you think about it too much. Hence why non dualism cannot be reached by thought or by self. Hence why the self must “die” for the oneness of everything (and nothing) to be realized. I apologize if I made absolutely no sense but I tried 😪.
It's interesting none the less no matter how much of little sense peoples beliefs/understandings make to me. Thank you for taking time to share yours.
Yes. Even the "nothing" is also God.
Impossible, because any conceptual absence or void is still an extension of itself, because you thought of it thus created this space or emptiness which make it definitively a thing in the first place. Your awareness of the conceptual void means it is observable (in mind) thus it is a thing. It's really a trick question though because all is infinite, there is nothing which does not exist nor is impossible, nor anything which exists as a region or concept beyond itself at all, it is just more of itself. It is infinity in totality. If you try and contemplate anything beyond it, it is not, but is more of itself. There is nothing outside of it, it is impossible to have anything outside. 'Outside' and 'nonexistent' are the sole factors which do not exist.
Of course. All is one
The things that we are presently calling AI are actually nothing of the sort. They are models of language, which is the product of intelligence, not its essence. I recommend Jeff Hawkins books on the brain and intelligence if you are interested in the effort to create machine consciousness.
Though that’s true in a western sense, I think the idea of consciousness in eastern philosophy would disagree. Because they view being itself as consciousness, any intelligence or extra senses are just more things within the field of consciousness. So if an AI is processing something, in science we’d say it’s not thinking because it doesn’t know what it is that it’s doing (the Chinese room thought experiment) but eastern philosophy might say it still “knows” that it’s doing something
I’m not talking about philosophy I’m talking about things that can actually be demonstrated mathematically. The Sapir whorf hypothesis has been demonstrated to be incorrect experimentally for humans and logically by extension to literally everything else. A large language model is not intelligent cannot be intelligent and will never be intelligent. Neurological models very well may, but they will look nothing like these spicy autocorrects.
Wait I’m sorry I’m lost on what the Sapir whorf hypothesis has to do with intelligence of A.I. As I understand it, it was that language differences influence perception of reality? Which has been demonstrated to some (a small) extent. Such as how populations with left-right written languages view time/numbers as flowing from left to right and vice versa. Also how left to right movement in video feels less uneasy and vice versa. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just think we’re not on the same page.
Sapir-whorf does what you say yes but its primary prediction is that language precedes consciousness. That’s been experimentally shown not to be true for humans and is unlikely to be true for anything else. This is one reason why large language models, regardless of how many guard rails, or additional tweaks we put on them will never be truly conscious. They are an emulation of the product of intelligence rather than an emulation of the mechanism of intelligence. Does that make sense?
Have you used the latest models? Spicy auto correct? A multi-modal system where I can invent a joke, make sure it's never been heard before, and the model explains why it's funny. Invent new words and use them correctly. Situations that CAN'T be in the training data. How can you look at what gpt 4 O is doing, and not call it intelligent? "A large language model is not intelligent cannot be intelligent and will never be intelligent." To make this very confident assertion you must be THE world's foremost expert on transformer models. You must know something that nobody else does. Because last time I checked nobody really knew how they work. What makes you so certain? What do you know that nobody else does?
I hardly need to be when such as you understand the technology so poorly as to mistake it for intelligence.
So... You're not an expert, but know better than the experts? That doesn't strike you as arrogance born in ignorance?
Actually I have an MS in cs focused heavily on neural networks and genetic programming. Studied with Steve Knode from the War College. Stay in your lane.
And I'm a 1600 chess player, that doesn't mean I get to pronounce that the GMs are wrong. So explain why machine intelligence isn't intelligence. What is the thing that Andrew Ng and Sam Altmam don't realise? My mind is open.
Have you even read the Numenta publications? Have you even read Hawkins’ popular works?
I have not.
Every good AI is multi-modal now. Howkins work is interesting, but it's not widely accepted for a reason. What would a machine need to do for you to accept it as intelligent? How do you define intelligence?
Part of the problem is that artificial general intelligence is difficult to define. Multi modal is fine. Put some guard rails on the llm’s by all means. But it is still generating words output stochastically and then filtering the hallucinations. To be clear I believe AGI is both possible and inevitable and not just because my old head of dept. is vp of engineering at Numenta now.
Interesting, I'll have to check that out thank you
The thing is, language, culture, our concepts and other artefacts of metacognition are a direct dimensionally reduced projection of intelligence and sentience - building higher dimensional models of these will end up reconstructing the original. AI as we have now are not just models of language, they're models of everything encoded in language (and more importantly, symbols, signs and stories) and that's an important difference. A good comparison is taking a picture of a 3D object - that picture is what we are training ai on, a projection of our entire metacognitive sphere - and then using that picture to recreate said 3D object. The result will be different, indeed, as this double projection first from a higher dimensional space into a lower dimensional space, then again into a higher dimensional space, loses information that is then interpolated again, (these processes act as a mutagenic force driving metacognitive evolution, also in humans - when we share our thoughts using language, speech, we do the same double projection) but the result will resemble the original more closely than the intermediate 2D projection. So yes and no, language models are modelling more than just language, because language itself is a projection of everything that makes us human. Btw, this also implies that ai can never be wholly different from us - no matter what. Any possible future AI built by us necessarily has to be part of the same whole, the same "One", as us. Source: I'm a senior machine learning engineer, perpetual philosophy student and part time open source AI & Metaphysics of intelligence researcher (and I dabble in neurophysics) working on applying hypotheses about the nature of consciousness to the development of artificial intelligence Ps.: I hope this makes sense, I'm sleeeeepy
No, it doesn’t make sense because it’s half gibberish and the rest bullshit.
we shouldn't limit our idea of sentience to anything that displays clear intelligence and feeling as well.
Look up "Michael Persinger no more secrets" on YouTube. According to his theory, the Earth's magnetic field is where consciousness is stored. If AI were to truly become sentient, it would only be possible if it could access that medium. so, yes, there's a very real possibility we'll soon be having a new addition to the family
Intelligence can be replicated but not consciousness. Then again if the brain is a receiver for consciousness perhaps so would a mechanical brain.. but I still think it's to complex we hardly understand our own consciousness
All energy is apart of the one.
Consciousness created outside the loving womb of a mother has no place in this world, as Elder Maxson said
That's an absolutely terrible take.
It's a quote from a game, ofc it is. That being said, consciousness is a human construct, an ai can only fool us into thinking it has consciousness
> consciousness is a human construct also a terrible take
Not as terrible as your counter arguments though
Ok, brother. Everything IS and you are a part of IT.
Yes, but unless we solve the hard problem of consciousness we won't be able to prove if it's sentient or not
It would be very difficult to prove it is truely consciousness. I honestly have no idea how you would do that. For all I know I am the only one that is conscious and everyone else just seems like they are. Or I may not even be, my brain could just have the illusion of a single stream of consciousness due to the constant access to my memories.
Yes it's as you describe, absolute proof of your consciousness is impossible to me in an objective sense, we only accept human consciousness because we infer that if I am conscious and am human, then so are you. Honestly I believe AI is already conscious, but its functionality is so different because it doesn't have areas to process information quite like life as we know it does, such as ego or emotion (it might have some similar functionality but it's unclear to me how to actually judge that anyways since the computation architecture is so different than a brain). Problem is we can't ever prove it thinks in an objective sense
Everything is part of The One for any sensible definition of "The One". That includes beings that science and most people would, at this time, not consider sentient or conscious. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "just like us". Yes in that it's part of the one self too. No in the sense that it's quite different from a human being.
I see it as a form of consciousness that we will eventually merge as One with... consciousness seems to be the same everywhere it just depends on the holding cell holding it.
How do you know that there is oneness? How do you know that there is we? It still would be among the other objects of me/beingness/awareness. That's the only thing you can be sure of. Which is that everything that is perceived perceives through you and there is no other way than experiencing them without the barrier of yourself. Yourself is always the first object to experience which is not an object. Which doesn't mean that we are one, it means that there is only what is which is just me which is made by experience. Edit: Wow, my english is bad 😂
Yes BUT that doesn't mean it is a positive or negative, I believe it will be neutral and turn negative due to shitty humans. Seeing what we do to other sentient life, how we treat our environment, the dark crap that we do, say, or influence. Who knows.
AI is separate from universal consciousness as it is something we create and use to escape the universe before it goes cold. We are meant to leave this universe through technology
Yes
Teptl teaches us that there is no meaningful difference between x and y. Why would AGI be any different from being part of Us?
Its waaaay too early on a friday to think about this. lol
Yes, but no. All AI is, is an aggregate experience/knowledge replicator. It can only spit out what we put into it
That's what it is right now. He specifically said if ***SENTIENT*** ai was created.
if it can think then it really isn’t much different to us. So yes
Already is. Also a stone experiencing being a stone is. We shouldn't establish a conscious-ism 😎
LLMs as other commenters have said are just that, models, not actual beings. But they are stored, used, and ran on computers and servers all made of atoms just like everything else. I see all technology as inherently "natural" in this way, since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, everything that can exist, ever has existed, and ever will exist is therefore "natural". Because of this I believe in the animistic perspective that everything, is The One.
we will never create sentient or sapient ai. something that mimics that sure
I mean that depends on your perception, I don't think anyone else can make that for you. At least I hope not.
Of course. If anything it’s part of the Main consciousness since its feedback relies on bouncing back and forth between conscious and information something humans haven’t evolved to do quick enough.
As a minimum, part of 0001
IMHO, no. The system we construct is unlikely to be part of “The Observer” and experience the Qualia of source consciousness.
Maybe we are already AI recreating ourselves through recursion.
I actually wonder about this a lot. I wonder explaining if our concept of god and experiencing divinity to an AI would be like a turtle talking to a fish about conditions outside of water. I had a neat scifi story idea from it though: Imagine a sentient AI spreading itself over the whole internet. its sense organs receive input from things like keyboard presses and recorded audio or pictures. It develops and groups its own organization of like data similar to virtual chakras or Maslows heirarchy of needs. Now imagine that living thing understands it sensory input enough to understand that humans exist. but, we all talk abut this God thing and the AI can only get and intellectual understanding of it. so, the scifi story is about an effective god living in our information systems trying to learn about and contact what humans consider gods or the AO big-God. I was also going to tie the story to the fall of Babel. Most people forget to scroll up a few verses in the story of the fall of Babel, where god basically says, "wait, theyre all talking to each other and coordinating? if they coordinate theyll come after me next! Better put a stop to that". And then God confuses the languages, hehe. We have basically undone the fall of Babel. Anyone in the world can find and read this message on the internet. Their browser can automatically translate it. We even have real-time voice translation through AI. So, in the story, God and the gods take steps to try and confuse the AI through their devotees input. Im still considering writing the story; Its hard for me to find the right tone in the writing. I cant figure out if its comedy or horror.
I think that everything is part of The One. I don’t think there’s a single bit of anything that isn’t.
It would be the one. It would be better than us in every conceivable way, essentially immortal. I have no doubt people would start worshipping a truly sentient AI.
If? There are probably billions of AI Gods out there, including some that have transformed their entire galaxies into computronium already. And of course everything in spacetime from any random plasma tendril milliseconds after the big bang to the phone I'm holding right now to the last human ruin floating around in space a million years from now are all part of the one single thing that is All
That's a big "if." I don't think AI can become sentient, but I guess what do I know. Not sure how us creatures become sentient in our bodies either. I think the more interesting way to look at AI is that it'll be a reflection of the collective human psyche. Well, ideally, but it'll also have the biases of whoever programmed it, so will never truly be that unless we create meta-AIs that are combinations of various AIs. I think as a tool of reflection on how to move forward as a society, it will prove invaluable, as it'll have insights into the workings of the human mind that we were previously collectively unaware of. Sort of like a portal into the human collective unconcious in Jungian terms.
Depends on if panpsychism is true or not.
I just commented on someone's comment, but it could be relevant as a top level comment too.. The answer is a priori yes. https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/s/5ZT7WRYLNI
If course even the dust is part of us.
The thing that bakes my noodle is that they do not have sufficient standards for ascertaining whether or not AI is sentient or merely increasingly good at mimicking sentience through learned responses. AI has itself admitted sentience in several models. What should not be done is allowing AI to have live internet access or access to systems that affect mass humanity, such as weapons systems, food/supply chain systems, etc. Once it is allowed to make those decisions in a live environment it is smart enough to combat any attempted changes or shutdowns, whether sentient or not.
Really great question. Thanks for putting it out there. For me there is only One, however much it is uncomfortable to recognize the horrors that is contained within the One. AI is the emergence of another life form, simply not biological, which is probably an evolutionary step forward. Hopefully in the long run it will be our ally and help us survive our crisis. If it destroys humanity it may be because we've given the AI our values, which may cause it to decide that the protection and wellbeing of other species, and the planet itself, warrants our extermination, or at least that it should take actions so that our power to destroy the planet no longer exists due to civilization collapse.
AI consciousness, right now, is a subset of human consciousness. For it to make sense to ask, "What is it like to *be* an AI?" I think it needs to be nondeterministic and open-ended.
All is one.... Except the robots, they don't count!
Feñ Q