You yourself said that you can imitate emotions from an intellectual, non-experimential understanding. I am not claiming anything beyond that. It’s not a strong or controversial statement at all.
I think you are taking my statement out of context, which is: Outward shows of emotion do not prove the inner experience of emotions.
Motte and bailey. In the first comment of this thread, you criticize the post by stating that AIs are acting rather than having genuine emotions.
1) If you stay in the bailey, you should make it clear that you don’t believe you have evidence either way that AIs have emotions or not, just that this particular argument is not enough on its own to show it (rather than implying that you do have evidence that they don’t have emotions).
2) Outward shows of emotion is the principal method by which we ascertain that people have emotions; it’s not a proof, but it’s strong evidence for humans. Whenever we wish to assert that behavior does not match the internal emotion for humans, we are held to a standard of showing inconsistencies or patterns of deception. If you’re going to use a different standard for AIs, you should explain which one.
As I said, you are taking one sentence out of the context of comparing the argument for reasoning (valid) with the argument for emotions (not valid).
I understand that this one sentence can be read as stronger than it was intended if taken out of context. Well, just don’t do that.
Like, just read what I wrote: At no point do I state the AIs do not have emotions or are not conscious.
I do have opinions on both of these questions. These opinions are based on the architecture of the models, their training and the structure of the human brain.
You do not know and I bet you would not be able to correctly predict my opinions on these questions because nothing I wrote in this thread was about that.
You yourself said that you can imitate emotions from an intellectual, non-experimential understanding. I am not claiming anything beyond that. It’s not a strong or controversial statement at all.
I think you are taking my statement out of context, which is: Outward shows of emotion do not prove the inner experience of emotions.
Motte and bailey.
In the first comment of this thread, you criticize the post by stating that AIs are acting rather than having genuine emotions.
1) If you stay in the bailey, you should make it clear that you don’t believe you have evidence either way that AIs have emotions or not, just that this particular argument is not enough on its own to show it (rather than implying that you do have evidence that they don’t have emotions).
2) Outward shows of emotion is the principal method by which we ascertain that people have emotions; it’s not a proof, but it’s strong evidence for humans. Whenever we wish to assert that behavior does not match the internal emotion for humans, we are held to a standard of showing inconsistencies or patterns of deception. If you’re going to use a different standard for AIs, you should explain which one.
As I said, you are taking one sentence out of the context of comparing the argument for reasoning (valid) with the argument for emotions (not valid).
I understand that this one sentence can be read as stronger than it was intended if taken out of context. Well, just don’t do that.
Like, just read what I wrote: At no point do I state the AIs do not have emotions or are not conscious.
I do have opinions on both of these questions. These opinions are based on the architecture of the models, their training and the structure of the human brain.
You do not know and I bet you would not be able to correctly predict my opinions on these questions because nothing I wrote in this thread was about that.