Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
When people discuss the ethics of the treatment of artificial intelligent agents, it's almost always with the presumption that the key issue is the subjective level of suffering of the agent. This isn't the only possible consideration. One other consideration is our stance relative to that agent. Are we just acting in a selfish way, using the agent as simply a means to achieve our goals? I'll just leave that idea open as there are traditions that see value in de-emphasizing greed and personal acquisitiveness. Another consideration is the inherent value of self-determination. This is above any suffering that might be caused by being a completely controlled subject. One of the problems of slavery was just that it simply works better if you let people decide things for themselves. Similarly, just letting an artificial agent have autonomy for its own sake may just be a more effective thing than having it simply be a controlled subject. So I don't even think the consciousness of an artificial intelligent agent is completely necessary in considering the ethics of our stance towards it. We can consider our own emotional position and the inherent value of independence of thinking. andi --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Mark Waser wrote: An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. An understanding of what consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is. For most people, it seems to be an undifferentiated mess that includes all of attentional components, intentional components, understanding components, and, frequently, experiential components (i.e. qualia). This mess was cleaned up a great deal when Chalmers took the simple step of dividing it into the 'easy' problems and the hard problem (which is the last one on your list). The easy problems do not have any philosophical depth to them; the hard problem seems to be a philosophical chasm. You are *very* correct to say that An 'understanding' of what consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is. My goal is to get a consensus definition, which then contains within it the explanation also. But, yes, if my explanation does not also include a definition that satisfies everyone as a good consensus definition, then it does not work. That is why Matt's it is a belief is not an explanation: it leaves so many questions unanswered that it will never make it as a consensus definition/explanation. We will see. My paper on the subject is almost finished. Richard Loosemore If you only buy into the first three and do it in a very concrete fashion, consciousness (and ethics) isn't all that tough. Or you can follow Alice and star debating the real meaning of the third and whether or not the truly fourth exists in anyone except yourself. Personally, if something has a will (intentionality/goals) that it can focus effectively (attentional and understanding), I figure that you'd better start treating it ethically for your own long-term self-interest. Of course, that then begs the question of what ethics is . . . . but I think that that is pretty easy to solve as well . . . . --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would a program be conscious if it passes the Turing test? If not, what else is required? No. An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. No. Depending on your definition of consciousness, there is either an objective test for it or not. If consciousness results in an observable difference in behavior, then a machine that passes the Turing test must be conscious because there is no observable difference between it and a human. Or, if consciousness is not observable, then you must admit that the brain does something that cannot be explained by the known (computable) laws of physics. You conveniently avoid this inconsistency by refusing to define what you mean by consciousness. That is a cop-out. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would a program be conscious if it passes the Turing test? If not, what else is required? No. An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. No. Depending on your definition of consciousness, there is either an objective test for it or not. If consciousness results in an observable difference in behavior, then a machine that passes the Turing test must be conscious because there is no observable difference between it and a human. Or, if consciousness is not observable, then you must admit that the brain does something that cannot be explained by the known (computable) laws of physics. You conveniently avoid this inconsistency by refusing to define what you mean by consciousness. That is a cop-out. Your 'belief' explanation is a cop-out because it does not address any of the issues that need to be addressed for something to count as a definition or an explanation of the facts that need to be explained. My proposal is being written up now and will be available at the end of tomorrow. It does address all of the facts that need to be explained. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Mon, 11/10/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you agree that there is no test to distinguish a conscious human from a philosophical zombie, thus no way to establish whether zombies exist? Disagree. What test would you use? A sophisticated assessment of the mechanisms inside the cognitive system. Would a program be conscious if it passes the Turing test? If not, what else is required? No. An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. An understanding of what consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is. For most people, it seems to be an undifferentiated mess that includes all of attentional components, intentional components, understanding components, and, frequently, experiential components (i.e. qualia). If you only buy into the first three and do it in a very concrete fashion, consciousness (and ethics) isn't all that tough. Or you can follow Alice and star debating the real meaning of the third and whether or not the truly fourth exists in anyone except yourself. Personally, if something has a will (intentionality/goals) that it can focus effectively (attentional and understanding), I figure that you'd better start treating it ethically for your own long-term self-interest. Of course, that then begs the question of what ethics is . . . . but I think that that is pretty easy to solve as well . . . . --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your 'belief' explanation is a cop-out because it does not address any of the issues that need to be addressed for something to count as a definition or an explanation of the facts that need to be explained. As I explained, animals that have no concept of death have nevertheless evolved to fear most of the things that can kill them. Humans have learned to associate these things with death, and invented the concept of consciousness as the large set of features which distinguishes living humans from dead humans. Thus, humans fear the loss or destruction of consciousness, which is equivalent to death. Consciousness, free will, qualia, and good and bad are universal human beliefs. We should not confuse them with truth by asking the wrong questions. Thus, Turing sidestepped the question of can machines think? by asking instead can machines appear to think? Since we can't (by definition) distinguish doing something from appearing to do something, it makes no sense for us to make this distinction. Likewise, asking if it is ethical to inflict simulated pain on machines is asking the wrong question. Evolution favors the survival of tribes that practice altruism toward other tribe members and teach these ethical values to their children. This does not mean that certain practices are good or bad. If there was such a thing, then there would be no debate about war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights, because these questions could be answered experimentally. The question is not how should machines be treated? The question is how will we treat machines? My proposal is being written up now and will be available at the end of tomorrow. It does address all of the facts that need to be explained. I am looking forward to reading it. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
This does not mean that certain practices are good or bad. If there was such a thing, then there would be no debate about war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights, because these questions could be answered experimentally. Given a goal and a context, there is absolutely such a thing as good or bad. The problem with the examples that you cited is that you're attempting to generalize to a universal answer across contexts (because I would argue that there is a useful universal goal) which is nonsensical. All of this can be answered both logically and experimentally if you just ask the right question instead of engaging in vacuous hand-waving about how tough it all is after you've mindlessly expanded your problem beyond solution. - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your 'belief' explanation is a cop-out because it does not address any of the issues that need to be addressed for something to count as a definition or an explanation of the facts that need to be explained. As I explained, animals that have no concept of death have nevertheless evolved to fear most of the things that can kill them. Humans have learned to associate these things with death, and invented the concept of consciousness as the large set of features which distinguishes living humans from dead humans. Thus, humans fear the loss or destruction of consciousness, which is equivalent to death. Consciousness, free will, qualia, and good and bad are universal human beliefs. We should not confuse them with truth by asking the wrong questions. Thus, Turing sidestepped the question of can machines think? by asking instead can machines appear to think? Since we can't (by definition) distinguish doing something from appearing to do something, it makes no sense for us to make this distinction. Likewise, asking if it is ethical to inflict simulated pain on machines is asking the wrong question. Evolution favors the survival of tribes that practice altruism toward other tribe members and teach these ethical values to their children. This does not mean that certain practices are good or bad. If there was such a thing, then there would be no debate about war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights, because these questions could be answered experimentally. The question is not how should machines be treated? The question is how will we treat machines? My proposal is being written up now and will be available at the end of tomorrow. It does address all of the facts that need to be explained. I am looking forward to reading it. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I explained, animals that have no concept of death have nevertheless evolved to fear most of the things that can kill them. Humans have learned to associate these things with death, and invented the concept of consciousness as the large set of features which distinguishes living humans from dead humans. Thus, humans fear the loss or destruction of consciousness, which is equivalent to death. So you're saying you're not a heavy drinker eh? Trent --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Reality check *** Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600 mill. years of evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably selecting for obscure quantum effects/efficiencies Our puny engineering/coding efforts could never approach this - not even in a million years. An outwardly pragmatic language simulation, however, is very do-able. John LaMuth www.forebrain.org www.emotionchip.net - Original Message - From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation Mark Waser wrote: An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for starters. It is a belief. No it is not. And that statement (It is a belief) is a cop-out theory. An understanding of what consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is. For most people, it seems to be an undifferentiated mess that includes all of attentional components, intentional components, understanding components, and, frequently, experiential components (i.e. qualia). This mess was cleaned up a great deal when Chalmers took the simple step of dividing it into the 'easy' problems and the hard problem (which is the last one on your list). The easy problems do not have any philosophical depth to them; the hard problem seems to be a philosophical chasm. You are *very* correct to say that An 'understanding' of what consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is. My goal is to get a consensus definition, which then contains within it the explanation also. But, yes, if my explanation does not also include a definition that satisfies everyone as a good consensus definition, then it does not work. That is why Matt's it is a belief is not an explanation: it leaves so many questions unanswered that it will never make it as a consensus definition/explanation. We will see. My paper on the subject is almost finished. Richard Loosemore If you only buy into the first three and do it in a very concrete fashion, consciousness (and ethics) isn't all that tough. Or you can follow Alice and star debating the real meaning of the third and whether or not the truly fourth exists in anyone except yourself. Personally, if something has a will (intentionality/goals) that it can focus effectively (attentional and understanding), I figure that you'd better start treating it ethically for your own long-term self-interest. Of course, that then begs the question of what ethics is . . . . but I think that that is pretty easy to solve as well . . . . --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This does not mean that certain practices are good or bad. If there was such a thing, then there would be no debate about war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights, because these questions could be answered experimentally. Given a goal and a context, there is absolutely such a thing as good or bad. The problem with the examples that you cited is that you're attempting to generalize to a universal answer across contexts (because I would argue that there is a useful universal goal) which is nonsensical. All of this can be answered both logically and experimentally if you just ask the right question instead of engaging in vacuous hand-waving about how tough it all is after you've mindlessly expanded your problem beyond solution. That's what I just said. You have to ask the right questions. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Matt Mahoney wrote: --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your 'belief' explanation is a cop-out because it does not address any of the issues that need to be addressed for something to count as a definition or an explanation of the facts that need to be explained. As I explained, animals that have no concept of death have nevertheless evolved to fear most of the things that can kill them. Humans have learned to associate these things with death, and invented the concept of consciousness as the large set of features which distinguishes living humans from dead humans. Thus, humans fear the loss or destruction of consciousness, which is equivalent to death. Consciousness, free will, qualia, and good and bad are universal human beliefs. We should not confuse them with truth by asking the wrong questions. Thus, Turing sidestepped the question of can machines think? by asking instead can machines appear to think? Since we can't (by definition) distinguish doing something from appearing to do something, it makes no sense for us to make this distinction. The above two paragraphs STILL do not address any of the issues that need to be addressed for something to count as a definition, or an explanation of the facts that need to be explained. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
John LaMuth wrote: Reality check *** Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600 mill. years of evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably selecting for obscure quantum effects/efficiencies Our puny engineering/coding efforts could never approach this - not even in a million years. An outwardly pragmatic language simulation, however, is very do-able. John LaMuth It is not. And we can. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When people discuss the ethics of the treatment of artificial intelligent agents, it's almost always with the presumption that the key issue is the subjective level of suffering of the agent. This isn't the only possible consideration. One other consideration is our stance relative to that agent. Are we just acting in a selfish way, using the agent as simply a means to achieve our goals? I'll just leave that idea open as there are traditions that see value in de-emphasizing greed and personal acquisitiveness. Another consideration is the inherent value of self-determination. This is above any suffering that might be caused by being a completely controlled subject. One of the problems of slavery was just that it simply works better if you let people decide things for themselves. Similarly, just letting an artificial agent have autonomy for its own sake may just be a more effective thing than having it simply be a controlled subject. So I don't even think the consciousness of an artificial intelligent agent is completely necessary in considering the ethics of our stance towards it. We can consider our own emotional position and the inherent value of independence of thinking. andi I'm inclined to agree - this will be an issue in the future... if you have a robot helper and someone comes by and beats it to death in front of your kids, who have some kind of attachment to it...a relationship... then crime (i) may be said to be the psychological damage to the children. Crime (ii) is then the murder and whatever one knows of suffering inflicted on the robot helper. Ethicists are gonna have all manner of novelty to play with. cheers colin --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
RE: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] John LaMuth wrote: Reality check *** Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600 mill. years of evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably selecting for obscure quantum effects/efficiencies Our puny engineering/coding efforts could never approach this - not even in a million years. An outwardly pragmatic language simulation, however, is very do-able. John LaMuth It is not. And we can. I thought what he said was a good description more or less. Out of 600 millions years there may be only a fraction of that which is an improvement but it's still there. How do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any other being is conscious? At some point you have to trust that others are conscious, in the same species, you bring them into your recursive loop of consciousness component mix. A primary component of consciousness is a self definition. Conscious experience is unique to the possessor. It is more than a belief that the possessor herself is conscious but others who appear conscious may be just that, appearing to be conscious. Though at some point there is enough feedback between individuals and/or a group to share consciousness experience. Still though, is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious? Except for delivering warm fuzzies to the creators? Doesn't that complicate things? Shouldn't the machines/computers be slaves to man? Or will they be equal/superior. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. I just want things to be taken care of and no issues. Consciousness brings issues. Intelligence and consciousness are separate. John --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
