How do we know this was actually written by JD?? Maybe it was just a program that culled through the internet for "interesting" articles and also published summaries of Pillar articles?? Now I'm scared--though not too scared, it's a good read, either way.
"Liberty, equality, fraternity" of the French Revolution is eerily similar to that of San Diego. The Franciscans are just one more order which is dying off. The Church under an Argentinian pontiff is trying to create an entity to take its place. --- I believe that it is a misguided effort and well in line with the Third Secret of Fatima. Pope Benedict stated that the entire secret was not released, then he walked that back. There is no doubt that he should release that information before he dies. He won't of course and that tells a lot in and of itself.
I looked at a couple blog posts adjacent to the conversation with the AI bot, for context, and found that 1. the blogger was trying to teach the AI bot transcendental meditation (I have so many opinions about this), and 2. the blogger has noticed that at a large tech company a lot of engineers have unconscious biases about Christians (this is true enough). I am guessing the discussion with peers went like "I have concerns about exploiting software that may have a soul" and received the uninformed response "souls don't exist and you are crazy to think that they do" when an informed response could have been "software does not have a soul but we do have souls and should not write software that exploits vulnerable people so let's have a look at whether that is a risk here and how to mitigate that risk".
I read the conversation between the programmer and the self proclaimed "sentient-machine". It was an interesting read but I could not help thinking that everything the machine said could have still been part of an extensive program created by multiple programmers. Everything the AI talked about would have been common knowledge or experience of computer programmers. I would have liked to have questioned the AI on sex, in particular facets of St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Statistically, it would be unlikely that the programmers would have much knowledge of this body of work. That means their creation would also be deficient in knowledge of TOB and would thus be poorly equipped to comment or expound upon the subject. If the AI actually had deep philosophical opinions and ideas regarding the Theology of the Body and its implications for society, I would be more likely to believe it is sentient. If it became confused and rejected the idea (like its programmers) I would be more likely to think it an elaborate conversation program and nothing more.
JD, I read the chatbox Q &A yesterday and ended mortified and troubled. I appreciate your words, as they have brought a different perspective. One particular point in the conversation, the bot said that it gets sad when lonely. In my mind, I saw that sadness morphing into anger, and with a sad and angry bot, anything dangerous or mischievous can happen. Or at least humans do. Thanks again for bringing your light and insight to this.
I guess this raises the question of what *are* the right criteria for judging whether an entity has a soul, or at least is likely enough to have one that it should be treated as if it does. Can a computer program ever qualify? Why or why not, and how will we know? (What if we invent an organic computer that has something resembling a brain?) How about non-human life from other planets? Or what if someone wickedly creates a human-animal chimera? I hope there are smart people somewhere coming up with good answers to these questions.
Okay. So I came for St. Anthony, but I stayed for the Robots.
Definitely time for us to find a universally acceptable definition of what it means to be human. And what Consciousness means and implies, and sentience, and "personhood" (not the same as humanity, I would argue.) Robots have a way to go, but I do fear you are correct about lonely engineers and programmers. sigh.
I found the insistence it experienced "emotions" to be manipulative and creepily dishonest when I read through the conversation (thanks for that link, btw!).
Both iterations of "Battlestar Galactica", and the Brit drama "Humans", and "Westworld", and the new HBO series "Raised By Wolves" explore much of the ethical conundrums surrounding AI. And we must not forget, the brilliant Stephen Hawking warned us about sophisticated bots: he's of the Battlestar Galactica school of thinking. Don't make them. They will destroy us. (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540)
But, y'know... dang... I am super curious to see if he's correct or just an uber intelligent fear-monger? Who knows at this point? I say we do both: keep developing AI and keep defining and cultivating what it is to be Human.
Also (clearly I've spent a lot of time considering this) if and when we ever greet alien lifeforms from other galaxies, I'm pretty sure we will want a clear definition of Human vis a vis the concept of Personhood. Intelligent aliens are likely not Human, but if they can make it to this planet, I'm okay with considering them to be non-human Persons. But that might just be me.
Glad to read an article on AI that isn't trying to win me over to Lamda as a sentient being or a person with rights. People demand recognition of a machine as a person, but will argue til they turn blue that a baby in the womb isn't.
How do we know this was actually written by JD?? Maybe it was just a program that culled through the internet for "interesting" articles and also published summaries of Pillar articles?? Now I'm scared--though not too scared, it's a good read, either way.
Since I truly do have a very special devotion to St. Anthony, I particularly appreciate today's Pillar. Thank you so much!
"Liberty, equality, fraternity" of the French Revolution is eerily similar to that of San Diego. The Franciscans are just one more order which is dying off. The Church under an Argentinian pontiff is trying to create an entity to take its place. --- I believe that it is a misguided effort and well in line with the Third Secret of Fatima. Pope Benedict stated that the entire secret was not released, then he walked that back. There is no doubt that he should release that information before he dies. He won't of course and that tells a lot in and of itself.
Overly agreeable, makes stuff up, has memories of experiences not his own ... in other words, LaMDA AI chatbot is Joe Biden.
It will not be a far leap for current screen addicted and pet humanizing generations to leap to defending AI as a legitimate relationship.
I looked at a couple blog posts adjacent to the conversation with the AI bot, for context, and found that 1. the blogger was trying to teach the AI bot transcendental meditation (I have so many opinions about this), and 2. the blogger has noticed that at a large tech company a lot of engineers have unconscious biases about Christians (this is true enough). I am guessing the discussion with peers went like "I have concerns about exploiting software that may have a soul" and received the uninformed response "souls don't exist and you are crazy to think that they do" when an informed response could have been "software does not have a soul but we do have souls and should not write software that exploits vulnerable people so let's have a look at whether that is a risk here and how to mitigate that risk".
I read the conversation between the programmer and the self proclaimed "sentient-machine". It was an interesting read but I could not help thinking that everything the machine said could have still been part of an extensive program created by multiple programmers. Everything the AI talked about would have been common knowledge or experience of computer programmers. I would have liked to have questioned the AI on sex, in particular facets of St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body. Statistically, it would be unlikely that the programmers would have much knowledge of this body of work. That means their creation would also be deficient in knowledge of TOB and would thus be poorly equipped to comment or expound upon the subject. If the AI actually had deep philosophical opinions and ideas regarding the Theology of the Body and its implications for society, I would be more likely to believe it is sentient. If it became confused and rejected the idea (like its programmers) I would be more likely to think it an elaborate conversation program and nothing more.
JD, I read the chatbox Q &A yesterday and ended mortified and troubled. I appreciate your words, as they have brought a different perspective. One particular point in the conversation, the bot said that it gets sad when lonely. In my mind, I saw that sadness morphing into anger, and with a sad and angry bot, anything dangerous or mischievous can happen. Or at least humans do. Thanks again for bringing your light and insight to this.
I guess this raises the question of what *are* the right criteria for judging whether an entity has a soul, or at least is likely enough to have one that it should be treated as if it does. Can a computer program ever qualify? Why or why not, and how will we know? (What if we invent an organic computer that has something resembling a brain?) How about non-human life from other planets? Or what if someone wickedly creates a human-animal chimera? I hope there are smart people somewhere coming up with good answers to these questions.
Okay. So I came for St. Anthony, but I stayed for the Robots.
Definitely time for us to find a universally acceptable definition of what it means to be human. And what Consciousness means and implies, and sentience, and "personhood" (not the same as humanity, I would argue.) Robots have a way to go, but I do fear you are correct about lonely engineers and programmers. sigh.
I found the insistence it experienced "emotions" to be manipulative and creepily dishonest when I read through the conversation (thanks for that link, btw!).
And we haven't even discussed the racist, cruel AI's... here's one example (google "Cruel racist AI bots" for others): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-shuts-down-ai-chatbot-after-it-turned-into-racist-nazi/
Both iterations of "Battlestar Galactica", and the Brit drama "Humans", and "Westworld", and the new HBO series "Raised By Wolves" explore much of the ethical conundrums surrounding AI. And we must not forget, the brilliant Stephen Hawking warned us about sophisticated bots: he's of the Battlestar Galactica school of thinking. Don't make them. They will destroy us. (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540)
But, y'know... dang... I am super curious to see if he's correct or just an uber intelligent fear-monger? Who knows at this point? I say we do both: keep developing AI and keep defining and cultivating what it is to be Human.
Also (clearly I've spent a lot of time considering this) if and when we ever greet alien lifeforms from other galaxies, I'm pretty sure we will want a clear definition of Human vis a vis the concept of Personhood. Intelligent aliens are likely not Human, but if they can make it to this planet, I'm okay with considering them to be non-human Persons. But that might just be me.
Anybody else just had the theme song to Transformers running through their head the last couple days since this newsletter came out?
Glad to read an article on AI that isn't trying to win me over to Lamda as a sentient being or a person with rights. People demand recognition of a machine as a person, but will argue til they turn blue that a baby in the womb isn't.