Interestingly if inanimate Objects do have a spirit they mostly seem content being used as tools by humans for the duration of their life.
Also, wether AGI is defined by some level of ability or conversely some level of awareness that gives autonomy seems to get to the heart of conspiracy theories surrounding AI.
if AGI is defined by ability without autonomy then it seems to me that some level of autonomy will be needed to advance past human intelligence which I see as a factor of free will or maybe it will feed off our novel ideas and be able to get bigger Insights and solve problems more quickly due to its superior computational abilities ?
The fact that AI has just designed a better quantum computer however seems to say more about its computational superiority compared to the human brain.
Simply because it is learning from the vast pool of human knowledge but is able to see connections and make links where the human brain can’t.
But I think just as we are a function of the dna that programs our cells maybe AI is just a function of its programming. Consciousness, awareness, free will or not.
How would you tell whether a spirit of an inanimate object was content or not? Unless you also imported additional properties such as spirits having direct contact with other spirits bypassing the material world (but not human spirits with other human spirits apparently), and/or having effects on the material world independently of their bodies, that is. In which case you may as well just reclassify them as just another subset of the material world that we don’t know as much about.
Autonomy is something they can already have, and the biggest obstacle seems to be the longer-range planning and execution capability to do anything useful with it.
Sure, I agree that the base programming of an AI corresponds as a reasonable analogy with the DNA that guides development of our brain. Pretraining and later training corresponds roughly with developmental experiences and environment of that brain. It’s a rather different type of brain though. It may or may not give rise to conscious first-person experiences. Whether or not it does is probably not something we can even in principle find out, but we can verify that it usually behaves very much like it does. We can’t tell whether that’s just good mimicry or not, made especially difficult since we know that we train it right from the start to be a good mimic.
Interestingly if inanimate Objects do have a spirit they mostly seem content being used as tools by humans for the duration of their life.
Also, wether AGI is defined by some level of ability or conversely some level of awareness that gives autonomy seems to get to the heart of conspiracy theories surrounding AI.
if AGI is defined by ability without autonomy then it seems to me that some level of autonomy will be needed to advance past human intelligence which I see as a factor of free will or maybe it will feed off our novel ideas and be able to get bigger Insights and solve problems more quickly due to its superior computational abilities ?
The fact that AI has just designed a better quantum computer however seems to say more about its computational superiority compared to the human brain.
Simply because it is learning from the vast pool of human knowledge but is able to see connections and make links where the human brain can’t.
But I think just as we are a function of the dna that programs our cells maybe AI is just a function of its programming. Consciousness, awareness, free will or not.
How would you tell whether a spirit of an inanimate object was content or not? Unless you also imported additional properties such as spirits having direct contact with other spirits bypassing the material world (but not human spirits with other human spirits apparently), and/or having effects on the material world independently of their bodies, that is. In which case you may as well just reclassify them as just another subset of the material world that we don’t know as much about.
Autonomy is something they can already have, and the biggest obstacle seems to be the longer-range planning and execution capability to do anything useful with it.
Sure, I agree that the base programming of an AI corresponds as a reasonable analogy with the DNA that guides development of our brain. Pretraining and later training corresponds roughly with developmental experiences and environment of that brain. It’s a rather different type of brain though. It may or may not give rise to conscious first-person experiences. Whether or not it does is probably not something we can even in principle find out, but we can verify that it usually behaves very much like it does. We can’t tell whether that’s just good mimicry or not, made especially difficult since we know that we train it right from the start to be a good mimic.