[Brendinooo]

My instincts are pretty different here.

- I'll try not to swear at/hit a printer: not because I see the printer as having human-like qualities of being capable but complex and unreliable, but because I want to be a person who can control his temper.

- Treating an inhuman thing as human because it can mimic us in some way is not something that I want to do.

[qarl]

So if a machine does become conscious, you're happy being nasty to it until it is proven conscious?

I try not to make errors like that.

[micromacrofoot]

just don't treat anything nastily, it's not so difficult - I don't treat my dog like a person but I'm also not nasty to her

[qarl]

Meh. I'm speaking loosely. You know what I mean.

Or you should.

EDIT: It's difficult to have a conversation when one person changes what they said after the fact.

[evilduck]

This seems like a variant of Pascal's wager.

[qarl]

I think you're right.

The important difference being - Pascal's wager is about saving your own skin, and this is about not stepping on someone else.

[evilduck]

> and this is about not stepping on someone else.

This is asserting personhood or consciousness of LLMs by default in your phrasing and then warning me about the dangers of violating your assertion. You're making the same wager and mistake. There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing. Warnings about made up things hold no weight.

[qarl]

I think I've been pretty clear about the uncertainty and my decision to err on the side of caution.

But hey - you do you.

I guess I just don't understand why you guys seem to hate on me - because I've decided to be extra careful?

Makes me wonder if maybe there's something else going on, you know?

[evilduck]

No, I don't know. Maybe this exact reply is why you get the interactions you do though.

You perceive opposing viewpoints or poking holes in logic as "hating on you", which is playing the victim, followed by alluding to conspiratorial nonsense against you.

[hn_acc1]

Yes. I'm currently not convinced it can ever be so. So until I hear something convincing to the contrary, I believe no machine can be conscious / sentient unless mimicking human behavior. And if it mimics human behavior intentionally, I have to ask why - and the answer is probably to get me to trust / use it more.

I was bright-eyed and excited about tech once. Like back in 1982 when I got my first home computer and thought CPUs were part magic. Now I know how machines work from the transistor level up to neural nets. There's nothing magical about it. And no consciousness.

Having seen the mockery that the finance-bros have made of "pure tech" (i.e. Jobs instead of Woz, Ellison instead of Joy, etc) and all the enshittification just for pure $$$, I'm leery of ANYTHING ANY tech company tells me anymore.

Now, do I believe that possibly "consciousness" is some kind of state of a super-circuit (our brains)? Sure. Can we emulate that on a computer? We can't even emulate a pebble on a computer (not simulate, emulate). We can SIMULATE what we THINK brains are, but we can't emulate a real one. Not even close, not for many decades.

[qarl]

Well, if it's any interest to you, the experts on the matter agree that the issue is unresolved.

So in the meantime, I'm going to err on the side of caution.

You do you.

[entrox]

I tend to agree with OP. In my opinion conscious machines are not something that we should allow to exist. If they do, they are not human and must never be treated as such.

I am not even slightly religious, but they would be abomination.

[qarl]

I'm not sure you actually agree with OP. He believes that conscious machines are not possible.

[Brendinooo]

What was unclear about my first bullet?

[qarl]

I said "inhumanely". You shifted the goal post to swearing at inanimate objects. I ignored you.

[Brendinooo]

Oh, we're arguing definitions. Okay.

inhumane: without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel

cruel: willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it

You cannot treat an LLM inhumanely, definitionally.

Anyways, when one swears at someone it's typically meant to berate or belittle that person - to inflict some sort of emotional pain. That's the sense I intended when using the word, which is why it fits as a response to what you're saying, and why I would say "don't be nasty to a LLM" has little to do with the LLM itself.

[qarl]

I'm sorry, we must be misunderstanding each other.

You have a nice day.

[Brendinooo]

you too!