|
|
|
|
|
|
by OkayPhysicist
379 days ago
|
|
|
See, I think your view is just as baseless as the people calling modern LLMs sentient. If I was to take a human, and gradual replace parts of him and his brain with electronics that simulated the behavior of the removed parts, I'd struggle to call that person not sentient. After all, is a deaf person who is given hearing by a cochlear implant "less sentient"? And if we were to skip the flesh part, and jump straight to building the resulting system, how could we not acknowledge that these two beings are not equals? We have no evidence whatsoever for anything at all so unique about oursleves that they could not be simulated. Hell, even a theological argument has issues: if God was able to create us in his image, complete with sentientience and humanity, what's to say we, too, can't so illuminate our own creations? To claim we have already achieved machine sentience is preposterous hype swallowing. To assert that it is impossible is baseless conjecture. |
|
|
But I never claimed that a person with synthetic augmentations was any less human/sentient than those with all their natural parts. I likewise never claimed that "we have already achieved machine sentience."
And here's some food for thought... Regardless if one believes in God or not, is it really that offensive to claim that our humanity is unique in its sentience? I find it offensive when some claim that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. (It sure provides great fodder for some wondrous science fiction, indeed.)
I will re-assert in other words, for the sake of clarity... That sentience is not an emergent property. That is the foundational definition upon which I contemplate the mystery (i.e. the reality of our being that science will never develop sufficiently to fully explain) of our existence. I for one, enjoy the endeavor of employing my sentience to explore & investigate our wondrous universe and to equally explore & relate with you and call you a friend in spite of our disagreement. Cheers!