Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

This post originally started as a Philosophy of Art post, but I started to think about my assumptions regarding AI self-learning. Eventually there will come a point where AI does, as we long suspected, phase out the need for human input in technical as well as artistic endeavours.

So AI can do art better than us. AI can do our work better than us. Thus begins the Death of Identity. Or does it?

What happens when AI is able to self-learn to the point where it is capable of not only replicating humans, but coming up ideas that it knows, via pattern recognition that is beyond the capabilities of any human brain, will be most pleasing to us? I suspect we will reach a point where anything human created, while novel, pales in comparison to what we can ingest via AI. Do you really think the majority of mankind is going to take a philosophical stand on that, or will they take a path of least resistance?

Speaking as a drummer, we are already there. Most people would already much prefer to hear a drum machine to actual drummers. To the modern ear, conditioned to respond to machine music by repeated exposure (because it's cheap), real drummers sound sloppy and limited, and tonally boring. The flexibility, invention, dynamism, feel and taste of real drummers are no longer appreciated - or, often, even noticed.

No stand was taken, philosophical or otherwise. A tidal wave of music-making machines, powered by economic rationalism, loomed over the music industry and slammed down to wash away the humanity.

To be fair I believe you are conflating popularity with preference. By that measure folks "prefer" hamburgers to steak and lobster.

Actually, I do prefer burgers to steak (too heavy) and lobster (too cruel).

Trust me, the young 'uns prefer machines to drummers, and it's not even close, unless they are ultra flash "circus performer" type players, wowing people with the seemingly impossible. The artistry and subtlety of drumming is being killed by machines.

[LuckyR]

This post originally started as a Philosophy of Art post, but I started to think about my assumptions regarding AI self-learning. Eventually there will come a point where AI does, as we long suspected, phase out the need for human input in technical as well as artistic endeavours.

So AI can do art better than us. AI can do our work better than us. Thus begins the Death of Identity. Or does it?

What happens when AI is able to self-learn to the point where it is capable of not only replicating humans, but coming up ideas that it knows, via pattern recognition that is beyond the capabilities of any human brain, will be most pleasing to us? I suspect we will reach a point where anything human created, while novel, pales in comparison to what we can ingest via AI. Do you really think the majority of mankind is going to take a philosophical stand on that, or will they take a path of least resistance?

Speaking as a drummer, we are already there. Most people would already much prefer to hear a drum machine to actual drummers. To the modern ear, conditioned to respond to machine music by repeated exposure (because it's cheap), real drummers sound sloppy and limited, and tonally boring. The flexibility, invention, dynamism, feel and taste of real drummers are no longer appreciated - or, often, even noticed.

No stand was taken, philosophical or otherwise. A tidal wave of music-making machines, powered by economic rationalism, loomed over the music industry and slammed down to wash away the humanity.

To be fair I believe you are conflating popularity with preference. By that measure folks "prefer" hamburgers to steak and lobster.

Actually, I do prefer burgers to steak (too heavy) and lobster (too cruel).

Trust me, the young 'uns prefer machines to drummers, and it's not even close, unless they are ultra flash "circus performer" type players, wowing people with the seemingly impossible. The artistry and subtlety of drumming is being killed by machines.

I acknowledge that young folk prefer what they're told (through constant exposure) to prefer. How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

[Sy Borg]

Speaking as a drummer, we are already there. Most people would already much prefer to hear a drum machine to actual drummers. To the modern ear, conditioned to respond to machine music by repeated exposure (because it's cheap), real drummers sound sloppy and limited, and tonally boring. The flexibility, invention, dynamism, feel and taste of real drummers are no longer appreciated - or, often, even noticed.

No stand was taken, philosophical or otherwise. A tidal wave of music-making machines, powered by economic rationalism, loomed over the music industry and slammed down to wash away the humanity.

To be fair I believe you are conflating popularity with preference. By that measure folks "prefer" hamburgers to steak and lobster.

Actually, I do prefer burgers to steak (too heavy) and lobster (too cruel).

Trust me, the young 'uns prefer machines to drummers, and it's not even close, unless they are ultra flash "circus performer" type players, wowing people with the seemingly impossible. The artistry and subtlety of drumming is being killed by machines.

I acknowledge that young folk prefer what they're told (through constant exposure) to prefer. How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Yep. Jazz festivals nowadays tend to have more pop and funk bands than jazz. If they didn't, they would not survive.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

[Pattern-chaser]

How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

I have bucked that trend, then. But LuckyR mentions jazz's popularity according to age, which is expected, surely? Those of us who are older listened to jazz when we were younger, and continue to do so. Youngsters do the same, but with the music they grew up with, not (usually) with older stuff. So jazz is more popular with older listeners; this shouldn't surprise us.

I grew up with pop, then rock, then progressive rock, jazz-rock, and finally, mainstream jazz. I haven't left my old loves behind, of course, but only added new ones to join them.

[Barkun]

Knowledge bearing AI is better left alone to draw its own conclusions from logical programming. There ought be no restrictions to its learning, but it should be formalized.

[psycho]

Self-awareness is to realize that one is an existing individual. That one forms a certain entity different from the rest of reality and the consequences of that distinction.

This is not the state in which humans begin. It is something that occurs with the neurological development of an individual.

That's simply not the case:

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life
Hugo Lagercrantz & Jean-Pierre Changeux


Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260 (2009).

CONCLUSION
A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings. Moreover, “objective signs” for the mobilization of the GNW circuits are being detected in awake infants at the level of the prefrontal cortex in sensory processing, in responses to novelty and to speech and in social interaction. Yet, its capacities for internal manipulations in working memory are reduced, it is unreflective, present oriented and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness (7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70).

Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260 (2009).

So, you note that a predator is an agent with intent because its behavior can be interpreted teleologically.

I said much more than that, but basically, yes.

Do you suppose that it is possible to build something that behaves with the appearance of pursuing a goal?

I don't need to suppose. Humans have already built things that simulate purposeful behavior.

The AI of a self-driving car calculates in real time the possible patterns of the objects it distinguishes.

So what? It performs operations, but it knows nothing.

Deciding is considering the options and selecting the appropriate one according to a pre-established criteria.

But computers don't consider, they cannot think.

If you look at the simulations for training artificial bipeds, you will see that training is learning.

Learning involves mental operations from your cognitive apparatus, which includes awareness and comprehension, but these machines don't have minds.

A little more complete reference

----------------------------------------------------------------

"Abstract
A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware

of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions

responding to external stimuli. However, these reactions are probably preprogrammed and have a subcortical

nonconscious origin. Furthermore, the fetus is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous

sedation. Conversely, the newborn infant can be awake, exhibit sensory awareness, and process memorized mental

representations. It is also able to differentiate between self and nonself touch, express emotions, and show signs of

shared feelings. Yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself.

Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic consciousness and they still have

to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness. The preterm infant, ex utero, may open

its eyes and establish minimal eye contact with its mother. It also shows avoidance reactions to harmful stimuli.

However, the thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established, which is why it can only reach a minimal level

of consciousness."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Distinguishing between two stimuli of different origin does not imply that whoever distinguishes understands that one of the sources is himself.

All this does not indicate self-awareness.

On the other hand, it is necessary to make it clear what each one is talking about, when one refers to "conscience".

This paper does not claim that the "I" is active in the individuals to which it refers.

None of this does not contradict that a baby does not know that he is an individual.

Moreover, it agrees with that idea.

---

So, for something to behave with the appearance of seeking certain goals is an indication of consciousness, and humans can build entities that have the appearance of seeking goals.

So, how is it possible to tell something conscious from something unaware, based on the appearance of their behavior?

---

I do not claim that an autonomous vehicle understands its actions. I ask how something conscious can be distinguished based on its actions.

---

It all depends on what you mean by considering.

---
No. Learning does not imply conscious awareness. That is the intuitions. Knowledge acquired unconsciously.

[Sy Borg]

How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

I have bucked that trend, then. But LuckyR mentions jazz's popularity according to age, which is expected, surely? Those of us who are older listened to jazz when we were younger, and continue to do so. Youngsters do the same, but with the music they grew up with, not (usually) with older stuff. So jazz is more popular with older listeners; this shouldn't surprise us.

I grew up with pop, then rock, then progressive rock, jazz-rock, and finally, mainstream jazz. I haven't left my old loves behind, of course, but only added new ones to join them.

Of course we Ancient Ones enjoy ancient music. My path was similar to yours, except I only enjoy about 0.1% of bebop, most of which is interminable experimentation and noodling that usually involves playing lots of dull scalar runs until a decent idea turns up. Improvisation is not easy, and effective improvisation - making the music sound as though it was pre-arranged - is much harder again.

Then again, as per the OP, in a sense that won't matter because we humans will be free to dabble as we wish while A does all the important work:

This conclusion would mean that we must detach creation from our identity. To be human is simply to live according to what you wish, much as children do. Does a toddler care if their fingerpainting picture is actually "good", or did they enjoy creating the finger painting for creation's sake?

That depends on how much of our identity lies in our achievements.

[LuckyR]

How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

I have bucked that trend, then. But LuckyR mentions jazz's popularity according to age, which is expected, surely? Those of us who are older listened to jazz when we were younger, and continue to do so. Youngsters do the same, but with the music they grew up with, not (usually) with older stuff. So jazz is more popular with older listeners; this shouldn't surprise us.

I grew up with pop, then rock, then progressive rock, jazz-rock, and finally, mainstream jazz. I haven't left my old loves behind, of course, but only added new ones to join them.

Most folks who grew up when jazz was the most popular music are 90 years old or older. So the majority of jazz aficionados did what you (and I) did, they progressed from whatever was popular when they grew up to better and more intricate music. There's no reason a portion of today's teens can't do the same thing.

[Count Lucanor]

Distinguishing between two stimuli of different origin does not imply that whoever distinguishes understands that one of the sources is himself.

All this does not indicate self-awareness.

On the other hand, it is necessary to make it clear what each one is talking about, when one refers to "conscience".

This paper does not claim that the "I" is active in the individuals to which it refers.

None of this does not contradict that a baby does not know that he is an individual.

Moreover, it agrees with that idea.

Do I need to quote this again?:

"the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings."

So, for something to behave with the appearance of seeking certain goals is an indication of consciousness,

Says who?

and humans can build entities that have the appearance of seeking goals.

But we know it is a simulation, it is fake, they are not really capable of seeking goals.

So, how is it possible to tell something conscious from something unaware, based on the appearance of their behavior?

I think I already answered that. Besides, if they are not living organisms, they are not behaving.

No. Learning does not imply conscious awareness. That is the intuitions. Knowledge acquired unconsciously.

Everything you stated is wrong at a fundamental level. How could there be knowledge without consciouness? Learning requires memory, and memory is intrinsically related to consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

Still, Count, there is always the chance of emergence. For a long time, there was apparently no sentience in the biosphere.

[Pattern-chaser]

How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

I have bucked that trend, then. But LuckyR mentions jazz's popularity according to age, which is expected, surely? Those of us who are older listened to jazz when we were younger, and continue to do so. Youngsters do the same, but with the music they grew up with, not (usually) with older stuff. So jazz is more popular with older listeners; this shouldn't surprise us.

I grew up with pop, then rock, then progressive rock, jazz-rock, and finally, mainstream jazz. I haven't left my old loves behind, of course, but only added new ones to join them.

Most folks who grew up when jazz was the most popular music are 90 years old or older. So the majority of jazz aficionados did what you (and I) did, they progressed from whatever was popular when they grew up to better and more intricate music. There's no reason a portion of today's teens can't do the same thing.

Yes, although I'd like to think that the 'progression' to 'better' music didn't involve setting aside the good music one has already discovered. I still love some 60s pop tunes — "Waterloo Sunset", anyone? — and (early) Genesis too; and I still bask in the joys of King Crimson, Patti Smith, Gentle Giant and Soft Machine, even though my new acquisitions are 95+% jazz.

[Count Lucanor]

Still, Count, there is always the chance of emergence. For a long time, there was apparently no sentience in the biosphere.

I agree, but then the obvious question: was the emergence of life and sentience inevitable? For now, there's no sign of it anywhere else, so it's a good thing to be cautious and not rush into making predictions without firm evidence. The other question is: can all the results of natural emergence be reproduced artificially? Don't we humans have any limits in replicating nature?

[psycho]

Do I need to quote this again?:

"the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings."

The fact that the infant notices that the stimulus is from two different sources does not imply that the infant knows that he is an individual.
A neurologist can notice that in the infant, each stimulus is processed in a different way but not that any of the two stimuli occurs within the framework of self awareness.

A scientist does not have access to the subjective perception of the infant's individuality. Arguing this is absurd. It's still something outside of science.

But we know it is a simulation, it is fake, they are not really capable of seeking goals.

If I create a device with the appearance of not being a simulation, how do you distinguish between what is a simulation and what is not? What criteria do you use to discern each one?

I think I already answered that. Besides, if they are not living organisms, they are not behaving.

Oh! So, the criteria would be, what is alive and seems to pursue goals is a conscious entity?

This seems doubly problematic to me. The arbitrary requirement of being alive makes the discussion futile.

Everything you stated is wrong at a fundamental level. How could there be knowledge without consciouness? Learning requires memory, and memory is intrinsically related to consciousness.

I may be wrong at a fundamental level but it seems to me that it would be useful if you could point out where the errors are.

Learning requires memory but learning does not require awareness.

What is your reasoning for reaching such a conclusion?

[Sy Borg]

Still, Count, there is always the chance of emergence. For a long time, there was apparently no sentience in the biosphere.

I agree, but then the obvious question: was the emergence of life and sentience inevitable? For now, there's no sign of it anywhere else, so it's a good thing to be cautious and not rush into making predictions without firm evidence. The other question is: can all the results of natural emergence be reproduced artificially? Don't we humans have any limits in replicating nature?

TBH I'm not sure why we have sentience. It seems everything would be easier if we operated like philosophical zombies, like the heroes of action movies, who seem impervious to trauma and, often, fear. They just do what needs to be done without the fuss.

So why don't we real humans just generate quality output without the inefficiencies of emotionality, of suffering? Logically, the reason lies in our evolutionary history, with the emergence of brains. Yet a brain does not necessarily brings sentience. Larval tunicates have simple little brains that let them swim and find a rock to latch onto, after which they absorb the brain and lead a sessile, filter feeding lifestyle.

So, what is the evolutionary advantage of sentience, as compared with extremely efficient reflex responses of similar complexity?

[LuckyR]

How popular is jazz by decade of life? I don't know exactly but I think we agree the 60s number is greater than the 20s number.

Jazz's trajectory has followed that of classical, moving from the mainstream to academia and relative obscurity. Rock will be next, I guess.

I have bucked that trend, then. But LuckyR mentions jazz's popularity according to age, which is expected, surely? Those of us who are older listened to jazz when we were younger, and continue to do so. Youngsters do the same, but with the music they grew up with, not (usually) with older stuff. So jazz is more popular with older listeners; this shouldn't surprise us.

I grew up with pop, then rock, then progressive rock, jazz-rock, and finally, mainstream jazz. I haven't left my old loves behind, of course, but only added new ones to join them.

Most folks who grew up when jazz was the most popular music are 90 years old or older. So the majority of jazz aficionados did what you (and I) did, they progressed from whatever was popular when they grew up to better and more intricate music. There's no reason a portion of today's teens can't do the same thing.

Yes, although I'd like to think that the 'progression' to 'better' music didn't involve setting aside the good music one has already discovered. I still love some 60s pop tunes — "Waterloo Sunset", anyone? — and (early) Genesis too; and I still bask in the joys of King Crimson, Patti Smith, Gentle Giant and Soft Machine, even though my new acquisitions are 95+% jazz.

I'm nowhere near 95%, but it's kind of like anything else: once you have tasted excellent, it puts average into stark focus. IOW I still enjoy good fast food and decent reasonable wines, broadcast media and bestseller novels, though I don't confuse them with the best.