News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners by Jensson on Friday February 17, 2023 @07:26AM (#34833831)
But that falls in another way. The computation that runs me did once run a monkey, but the consciousness in me don't remember being anything but me, it doesn't remember being a monkey. So computations aren't the same kind of consciousness as us, they might be conscious in another way, but they aren't what most people mean when they talk about consciousness, so you making up your own definition will just cause confusion. A process without memory might be conscious in some way, but it can't be conscious in the same way we are.
Re:People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners by s_weber on Friday February 17, 2023 @07:55AM (#34834073)
Memory - in my opinion - is not something that's inherent to consciousness. Rather, it is just another input that can be used by the computation.

I don't think I came up with my own definition here. What I am talking about is the ability to have a qualitative experience. That it feels like something to exist.

I concur that the experience of an AI would substantially differ from ours (e.g. because we have access to memory). But this fact alone can't free us from thinking about ethical implications of our actions. Many animals probably have a substantially different experience as well. Yet, I would argue, we should strive to minimize imparting suffering on them if they are able to experience it.

Re:People for the Ethical Treatment of Reinforcement Learners by mlatu on Friday February 17, 2023 @08:33AM (#34834449)
> A process without memory might be conscious in some way, but it can't be conscious in the same way we are.

yo, ever heard about dementia?

also, the web already can function as "their" memory via websearches. i.e. users submit most ridiculous responses on the internet and sidney can thus find them and its own other sessions