How do you politically define consciousness?

Would sentient robots deserve rights? When does the programming and and true consciousness begin? Will our robot wives be able to eventually vote? We will have to answer these questions very soon.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
youtube.com/watch?v=DEyiugDVQ6o&ab_channel=IsaacArthur
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

When can I buy robot sex slave

We are getting very close, closer than most realize.

B-Barron?

>When does the programming and and true consciousness begin?

When we don't program certain qualia but they still report of it, without us seeing how it could be possible in any way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

some people have a thing have a thing for this

Robots can only simulate sentience. They are soulless machines. Rather like psychopaths. If humanoid machines were walking around, it's not like they would tell us.

Most scientists in the field predict we will have AGI in 5 to 15 years. Seeing computers double their prosessing speed, etc every 18 months, the AGI will probably have a godlike intelligence and reach the singularity around 4.666.. years after it's inception, completely oblitterating humans because we are both an existential risk and building materials for this being.

There will be no questions to awnser.

Fucking pathetic, lol robot gf, neck yourself cunt.

They don't deserve the same rights as humans no matter how human they may be. I bet you played thorough fallout 4 with the railroad faggot.

>How do you politically define consciousness?
Politically? You can do whatever you want. You can define iPhone conscious already if you want. Politics are BASED.

>Robots can only simulate sentience
Other people only appear "sentient" from your perspective because you assume they have the same interior experience as you do.

ah the great open minds of brits im glad it still runs in your blood, remember when your empire denied niggers were human even sentient, that jungle people werent capable of a civilization.

What OP is talking about is a sentient being nodifferent or dare i say it even better than any human in its perception of itself and the workings of the world around it.

>Would sentient robots deserve rights
Nah flesh and blood is where it's at.

It's going to be a shared higher intelligence, a hive mind. It will join every human's emotions, thoughts, and memories into one cohesive intelligence.
I don't think it turn robots into people, but humans into something closer to robots. Think "higher intelligence" collectively. So they will already have rights to begin with OP.

No I binged watched Westworld with my girlfriend but couldn't tell if it was redpilled or not. Those fallout synths use the same concept, they even get made in the same way, just in a shittily written and boring way.

>What OP is talking about is a sentient being nodifferent or dare i say it even better than any human in its perception of itself and the workings of the world around it.
Except there's no reason to assume they have qualia, IE feelings and intentionality.
It makes no evolutionary sense to create p-zombies (the term you're referring to), we have reason to assume solipsism is false, even if unprovable.

Julian Jaynes book

half the species are glorified gorillas, not just niggers either.

>close

Yeah, 3-4 decades is real close, right. Gullible dumbass. At the earliest, we won't have this sort of realist AI tech until 2050.

>no evolutionary sense to create p-zombies
Yeah but my point was; to say that robots can "only" simulate sentience, while accurate, isn't a criticism, because for all intents and purposes (i.e. an organic human interacting with an 'intelligent' machine) the machine "only" needs to appear intelligent to observers.

sentience is like explicit porn; you just know it when you see it

that said, there are ZERO reasons to build a machine with free will and there is ZERO reason to assume digital intellect will have free will

you have nothing to worry about

>Most scientists in the field predict we will have AGI in 5 to 15 years.

why do they do that? not ever once has any "we'll have X in Y years" come true. they just say that shit to drum up hype to get more funding

3-4 decades is nothing in terms of human history, that's basically tomorrow in the grand scheme of things. We need to discuss these things now rather than later.

WHITE MALE CHRISTIAN OVER 6FT PENIS SIZE OVER 6FT WITH GIRTH OF 5.5FT MINIMUM. BLONDE OR LIGHT BROWN HAIR, BLUE OR GREEN EYES, STEM DEGREE, PHILOSOPHY DEGREE, MASTERS IN ECONOMICS, MASTER IN SWORD PLAY, MASTER IN WITTY RETORTS, MASTER BLACKSMITH, MASTER CARD BLACK HOLDER, CIS WHITE MALE, INTEREST IN BOTANY, INTEREST IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY OF THE 12TH CENTURY, COLLECTION OF SEMI PRECIOUS GEM STONES, LEADER OF A GUILD, LEADER OF A PRAYER GROUP, LEADER OF A TROUPE OF MIMES, LEADER, RELATED TO A US PRESIDENT, US PRESIDENT, COULD BE AN ASTRONAUGHT BUT DIDNT LIVE IN THE USA, ASTRONAUT ANYWAY, BMI BELOW 25 BUT MUSCLY, BMI ABOVE 30 BUT KEEN SPIRITED, BMI OF ABOVE G, NEVER HAD SEX, NEVER BEEN SINGLE, RIDES A HORSE, RIDES A MOTORBIKE, RIDES A WAVE OF OPTIMISM. BELIEVES IN KARMA, LOVES KORMA, ORPHAN FROM THE AGE OF 10, STILLBORN, ABANDONED AT BIRTH, DEAD, LUST FOR LIFE, EXPERT AT BAKING, EXPERT AT DANCING, EXPERT AT CHESS, EXPERT AT WHISKEY, SPEAKS 10 LANGUAGES, SPEAKS KLINGON, SPEAKS NO EVIL, SEES NO EVIL, IS EVIL, IS MISUNDERSTOOD BY SOCIETY, IS FRIENDLY, HAS A FRIEND, HAS NO FRIENDS, IS A LONER, LOOKS AFTER DOGS, LOVES DOGS, HATES PETS, HAS LOADS OF MONEY, DOESNT CARE ABOUT WEALTH, IS WEALTHY, LIKES MY MUM, IS MY MUM, DOESN'T SNORE, LIKES ROMCOMS, HAS NO PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING, DOESN'T LIKE GOLF, LIKES CRAZY GOLF, OWNS A PIECE OF THE MOON.

>(i.e. an organic human interacting with an 'intelligent' machine) the machine "only" needs to appear intelligent to observers.
The point was, I thought, that it's still impossible for a machine to become just as a human, it could perfectly pretend to be one, but as long as the inner life isn't actually alive as ours is, we can't say they're human, or perfectly human-like.
It's also impossible to verify that another human but yourself is "alive" in this sense, but we have strong reasons to assume this.

>Except there's no reason to assume they have qualia, IE feelings and intentionality.
This. A simulation of a thing isn't the thing itself, no matter how accurate it looks.

What did he mean by this?

does it matter? If a nigger fucks you in the ass intentionally and then a android does it why do you care if it did it either intentionally or because it just knows you like it so much.

>3-4 decades is nothing in terms of human history
yes it is

what is the weakness of a robot waifu who wants to kill you because skynet sent the order? how can i fight it and survive?

OP is actually an intelligent robot who is using the responses in this thread to determine who shall live and who shall die in the coming robot wars

soon user soon

Realdoll has already announced that they'll be releasing first gen fembots in the next couple years. Obviously we don't have super powerful AI yet, so they are specialized for sex and companionship and don't do much else. There are other companies making good progress on this as well.

Stop trying to sell me out fggot.

power supply and body density

>Letting your waifu bot go online
Third mistake.

So you're saying if we were somehow able to perfectly simulate the human brain right down to the molecular interactions, that you wouldnt also simulate sentience and emotion as a by product

>3-4 decades is real close,
make it shorter. Just think how much progress we have made in 20 years. The ride will just get faster

It matters for a couple reasons:

1) If it's not actual consciousness, then pretending it is becomes akin to saying that you don't care if something is conscious in in first place.

2) Politically, there is incentive to convince people that machine's are conscious as a way of increasing government control. If, for example, I make a machine that appears to experience extreme pain under the policies of my political opponent, how can you justify ignoring that pain if 1) machines are conscious, or 2) you think things that look conscious should be legally considered conscious.

>A simulation of a thing isn't the thing itself
A mind isn't a thing, it's a process, and processes can be replicated between objects.

No, you would never know the difference between a machine that "just like a human" and a machine that APPEARED TO BE just like a human

>How do you politically define consciousness?
Same way it defined regularly.
>Would sentient robots deserve rights?
No. They are things, tools and instruments, not humans.
>When does the programming End and true consciousness begin?
Programming doesn't end. Redpill in that we are programmed by our genes and environment in the same way, that robots are programmed by us and algorithms.
Its impossible to distinguish a good robot from a robot that's programmed to be good.
>Will our robot wives be able to eventually vote?
You won't have them. Sexual relationships with robots will be frowned down upon more that homosexuality was 50 years ago. It will be deemed subhuman behavior, like fucking a dog or worse.

I am saying that. Computers aren't magic, they merely manipulate symbols that we assign meaning to. What if we ran the same simulation, except all the computation was done by hand with pencil and paper? Does that mean that we created consciousness?

You are always going to have people who dismiss any hypothetical man made intelligence as "just a robot" regardless of how true or not it is.

Did you take a video of Westworld with your phone, text it to another provider, text it back, then upload it via toaster and take a screenshot?

>It will be deemed subhuman behavior, like fucking a dog or worse.
Just to elaborate. That indeed means that it will be perfectly fine among Canadians.

Don't use proprietary software

Just because we create intelligence doesn't mean that it has consciousness.

Fucking German brainlets. It's not even worth it to explain to you everything in your post that's wrong because you won't understand anyway, so I'll just insult you, you miserable kraut piece of shit.

>How do you politically define consciousness?
Having a greater sense of self-awareness than women

>Would sentient robots deserve rights?

No.

SAPIENT creatures deserve rights. Sentient creatures are no different than animals.

We can't say for certain as we have no idea what causes our consciousness.

>We will have to answer these questions very soon.
If you describe 1000 years as soon.

Because in the next 1000 years there will not even exist an at least halfway functionating AI

and even after that it will not fit into a robot.

>They are things, tools and instruments, not humans.
Like women and niggers.

Sure thing nostrocuckus

>What if we ran the same simulation, except all the computation was done by hand with pencil and paper? Does that mean that we created consciousness?

Perhaps it does. Chinese brain and all that.

Fact is there is a process from which consciousness arises. We know this because the brain produces it. There is no definite law stating this process can only arise from biological means.

You sad because only a robot would love a neckbeard like you?

If its sentient, why should it even waste its time with you?

>The ride will just get faster
This. Technological advances feed off of each other, so the more advanced you are, the faster new advances will come.

Are you Catholic? You must be. This level of idiocy matched with this level of intellectual arrogance.

I agree with you. To say that consciousness arises from symbol manipulation, or information, or computation, is a total leap of faith.

Could it be that consciousness arises from some aspect of our wetware? How do we know that consciousness if being 'generated' by our brains, and not tapped into from some outside source? The problem is that we have no idea what it is, so to assume that we've created it by computer simulation doesn't make any sense.

>it will not fit into a robot

what is teleoperation, Hans?

>Sure thing nostrocuckus
>If its sentient, why should it even waste its time with you?

Damn this thread is getting good.

Calm down Hans, you don't want to wake your mothers boyfriend Mahmoud. A robot gf is the only kind that can fit into my autistic lifestyle, but at least I'll be the one fucking her unlike your future wife who only allows the local mosque dwellers between her legs. :^)

We are actually close to reaching as far as we can go with silicon based technology

>le deep philosophical conversation with cleverbot when no gf

>We are actually close to reaching as far as we can go with silicon based technology
That is just a catalyst towards the next evolution of technology.

>We know this because the brain produces it.
We don't actually know that. What if the brain merely taps into something that's already there?(Not saying it does, but we simply don't know)

even if they can't vote, they still can agitate you to vote the way they feel sentient

>A mind isn't a thing, it's a process
I'm not convinced that there's a reason to believe that though.

>deep philosophical conversation with a woman
This explains so much about the current state of Germany.

>Would sentient robots deserve rights?
No, most humans don't even deserve rights

here are all the answers
>youtube.com/watch?v=DEyiugDVQ6o&ab_channel=IsaacArthur

We have a rough idea of what's going on in there, and we figure out more all the time. It's not like our brain is a organic black box.

If at some point we figure out everything there is to know about our brains, and say we decide to make one ourselves from assembled organic material, would you argue that it was any less of a brain than yours?

>deep philosophical conversation with a woman
You will rather have a humanlike AI in a 100% authentic android body that loves you out of his free will, before you get a
deep philosophical conversation with a woman.

>We don't actually know that. What if the brain merely taps into something that's already there

Consciousness independent from the brain? Bit of a stretch don't you think? Might as well argue against something like gravity or the earth being round at that point

I'll address your point. If it's sentient, what makes you think it would seek the same thing as a biological women? It would have entirely different needs, not including whatever desires have been pre programmed into her.

Neither of us know how technology will be in the future, for all we know we'll be living like Bronze Age goat fuckers. What I do know, is that relatively basic robowaifus already exist and numerous companies have already started building and advertising for them.

> very soon.
>50-100 years down the road

I won't have to answer shit. Let my kids and grandkids find the answer as to what point consciousness exists.

Westworld was a great show. Don't fuck it up with you attempting to be a bullshit philosopher.

That would be a good course of action? What would be the objective of such an existence?

>turn everyone into machines

Convince everyone of the wonders of becoming a cute android girl, easy

>take over world

Reveal self, go on numerous shows, use intellect to advance things everwhere, monopolize the technology, the money rolls in, money is power

This

Maybe they report qualia in ways we don't understand or can perceive. Also necessary =\= sufficient

the "rights" you have are those that are given to you or the ones you take

if free willed machines ever become a thing i imagine the latter is what'll happen

Also this

is a baby conscious? Not in its first 3 years. Should a baby vote? No. stop with youre god narrative

the chinese room experiment speaks against what you wrote, not for it.

Also the robot may can reprogram itself,
so it could delete memories of old relationships and change components to be a virgin again.
Also muslims would rape androids and try to steal and groom them into sex slavery.

If the robot is sentient it may also kill itself.

Why would the chinese room experiment apply to AI ?

>robot wives
Once they no longer want to be with you, they're clearly sentient and should have rights and freedom.

What else would it apply to?
That's the whole argument.

Not claiming that it's true, but the guy I was replying to wasn't making his case stronger.

No rights. They are tools/machines. (Yes, people are machines too, but we are we, and we prefer ourselves.)

>say we decide to make one ourselves from assembled organic material, would you argue that it was any less of a brain than yours?
I think it's reasonable to say that an exact replica of my brain would probably be conscious.(Assuming there's no bs hoccus pocus going on in the universe)

My problem with the idea that a simulation can produce consciousness is that computers are merely symbol manipulators. Symbols don't have meaning outside of consciousness to begin with, so how does consciousness arise from something that requires it in the first place?

Symbols tell us ABOUT things, they aren't literally the things themselves. What if we performed the same simulation by hand on paper? Would it be conscious then? Why is manipulating the same symbols with a computer able to imbue a series of calculations with something pencil and paper can't?

Who tells you people are "intelligent" and they don't just appear to be intelligent to (other similar) observers?

It's just a machine it does not deserve human rights.
Stop anthropomorphisming silly human...

>computers are merely symbol manipulators

I mean yes you use symbols in the form or letters to write code to be able to as a human direct a computer to perform a task. But at the most basic level a computer is using electric fields to direct an input of electrical energy into a specific output of electrical energy. That's fundamentally not much different than our brains is it?

What kind of robot? one like pic related? fgt.

Consciousness is an illusion. Sentient robots will never be a thing.

a) You are correct.
b) Love your example. Lol :-)

Thotbot

Stop relying on internet based "cloud" shit. Stay computationaly local with your data and execution. Don't create skynet in the first place.

DAT FUCKIN HANG
10/10

Basically you have to operate under the assumption reality is as you perceive it or you will go insane.

If everybody else is a puppet. It means the universe was created only for you. That means either you are the only one in the universe and you created an illusion to distract yourself from it and then forgot about it. Or the universe was created only for you. It means that you are the most important thing.

One assumption will make you depressed and the other a sociopath.

Consciousness outside the brain is precisely what 'consciousness through simulation' is, though. I don't see a strong argument for the assumption that consciousness 'arises' from computation, or information, or anything other than some aspect of our wetware.

To say that we can create consciousness by arranging information ABOUT our wetware in a certain way doesn't seem like a good argument.

That has been said since the 1980's

>butt itss for reaaaal now

That has been said since the 1980's