[mrangle]

>"Asked whether AI systems might one day have emotional intelligence and understand that they have feelings"

There isn't a relationship between these two states. It's weird that anyone would pair them in conjunction.

Also, there's a fast and loose use of the word "understand". Which embodies the type of sloppy language that creates the illusion that this issue is a serious discussion aside from entertainment.

Projecting human traits onto objects generally falls by the wayside after early childhood. Even if those objects can be seen to ape those traits, on occasion. That Teddy Ruxpin had the potential to have actual emotions never took off as a discussion and neither do we generally hallucinate that the wind in the trees is an army of spirits.

[flangola7]

Here's the the thing, the brain is just an object too.

[mrangle]

Again, with the misuse of language in order to create the illusion of a point. In this case, in an attempt to create a ridiculously reductionist hallucination that the human brain is in the same essential category as a tree, toy, or computer, and therefore that cross-assigning human traits is a rational discussion. This topic, taken seriously, makes science-oriented people look bad.

A nuclear reactor, a bear, and a blade of grass are also all objects. Yet, we don't casually cross assign their essential traits.

[scarmig]

For what it's worth, I've given serious thought to whether a rock or the wind have consciousness. I rejected the idea, but it's essential for us to consider it for reasons of ethics. Consciousness is something even now we have essentially no understanding of. If we make something that mimics human behavior perfectly well and kinda-sorta parallels parts of how the brain works, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate human intelligence to it, just as we extrapolate our individual experience of consciousness to other humans. Defining consciousness to be a purely human/biological trait could lead us to do terrible things to entities worthy of moral consideration.