I suspect you might want some explanation for the downvotes. To put it briefly, we have collectively spent some time here debating these topics, and you seem to be completely unaware of the previous debate.
If I try to extract the point of your article, it seems to be “without senses, AI will not develop a sense of self” and a sidenote of “what makes you think the AI could do better than animals?”.
The answers that seem obvious to me are that (1) the sense of self is not necessary for the AI to kill us all; we already assume that the source of danger is not some anthropomorphic malice, but rather AI doing the task we programmed it to do, instead of what we should have programmed it to do; (2) AI already does better than animals on many dimensions, you can more easily talk to GPT than you can to a dog.
I suspect you might want some explanation for the downvotes. To put it briefly, we have collectively spent some time here debating these topics, and you seem to be completely unaware of the previous debate.
If I try to extract the point of your article, it seems to be “without senses, AI will not develop a sense of self” and a sidenote of “what makes you think the AI could do better than animals?”.
The answers that seem obvious to me are that (1) the sense of self is not necessary for the AI to kill us all; we already assume that the source of danger is not some anthropomorphic malice, but rather AI doing the task we programmed it to do, instead of what we should have programmed it to do; (2) AI already does better than animals on many dimensions, you can more easily talk to GPT than you can to a dog.