AI Self-Awareness: Are We On The Path To Our Doom?

Science and Technology
41
I just found your initial reaction odd, an over reaction that’s all. -- hugo
Do you understand the reason for the rule? If you do, isn’t simply stating the rule the exact expected reaction?
I said I don’t disagree with what you said, I agreed!
Then you broke the rule again. Not what I call agreement.
I don’t recall asking anything of you
That part was addressed to JohnC
the site is abysmal and nobody has done anything do rectify it.
You don’t know what people are doing. They don’t report to you.
what influence you do have
I have the same amount of influence as you. I think I spend more time on the site than the people who make the decisions and administer the software, so I let them know things if I think they need to know. I’ve never asked for a full explanation of their choices and don’t plan to.
but given that absolutely nothing ever happens
you should have been here when the new site first came up. I could also show you the spam folder.
If you have nothing whatsoever to offer, to contribute, to getting the forum improved then just butt-out.
Now who’s overreacting? This thread is titled “AI Self-Awareness”. It’s well within any forum etiquette I know of to stay on topic.

One of the best ways to increase traffic would be to participate in lively discussion and keep the complaints in the complaints section rather than disrupting existing threads.

42

He gave you the reason why issues and complaints section is no good. Around and around we go.

43
He gave you the reason why issues and complaints section is no good. Around and around we go. -- JohnC
I heard his reason. It just wasn't a very good one. I read the Issues and Complaints. In fact, I'd be more likely to read that than I would a comment mixed in with a different topic. Some of the topics here don't interest me, so I might never see it. There is nothing that is accomplished by bringing it up in someone else's thread, other than to disrupt their thread and degrade the readability of the forum.

So, I’m actually offering something here, something to improve the forum. A forum with people whining about the forum software is something I will moderate. I’m thinking about taking some WordPress classes, and I’ve spent some time on their help pages, but I didn’t find help with the things we were experiencing. If you or anyone else wanted to actually be helpful, you could do that. Something beyond, “look at this other forum, it’s better”.

44
If you have nothing whatsoever to offer, to contribute, to getting the forum improved then just butt-out.
Begs the question: Why have a discussion with someone who's dedicated to behaving like a jerk?

And if you have nothing whatsoever to offer, why not just butt-out?

45

Bringing it back to AI. The devil is in the details.

The danger of artificial intelligence isn't that it's going to rebel against us, but that it's going to do exactly what we ask it to do, says AI researcher Janelle Shane. Sharing the weird, sometimes alarming antics of AI algorithms as they try to solve human problems -- like creating new ice cream flavors or recognizing cars on the road -- Shane shows why AI doesn't yet measure up to real brains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCzX0iLnOc

 

It’s occurred to me that within that talk there were overtones of the biological truism, that we can’t understand an organism without also understanding it’s environment. In this case the environment being the human programmer.

46

Josh is both engaging and intelligent which made the production of this podcast all the more horrific. After 15 minutes of pain I had to turn off. Why, oh why was it decided to add the annoying background music? It’s okay, we are intelligent enough to concentrate without being prompted. Perhaps you could upload a version without this for those with an IQ of more than 17?

47

While I agree that the music overlay onto documentaries are often obnoxious, occasionally drifting to criminal, like when the angelic chorus gets shoved down the viewers collective throats. But, Janelle Shane talk was a talk, no music. What are you referring too?

48

I thought I had it figure out. Anyway, I rewrote, as a non-link. No big deal, just pointing out that I’ve been thinking about this very topic lately.

49

I always like to ask this when speaking with hard AI advocates, at what point does a mindless algorithm stop being a mindless algorithm? Are there types of algorithm that are somehow different, not simply rules and lookup tables? get-mobdro.com

50

paul i have a question for you.

Why does capitalism always pigeon hole robots as being at war with humans??

51
I always like to ask this when speaking with hard AI advocates, at what point does a mindless algorithm stop being a mindless algorithm? Are there types of algorithm that are somehow different, not simply rules and lookup tables?
You're asking the wrong question. The question should be; when does a self-referential information processing pattern become self-conscious?

Watch this and see if this is a conversation between two self-aware persons or lifeless information processors.

Now imagine yourself asking this “person” if it is self-aware and it answers in the affirmative. Are you going to argue with it?

 

52
I don’t think it requires consciousness
Define consciousness.
It can manipulate people by controlling what they see. Don’t let all those computers in silicon valley control what you see. Right now its to get you to buy something but its changing fast.
These algorithms are all prior programmed controls and have no real choice in decision making. What you want is an AI that will write you an algorithm if you ask it to do so, by giving it a few verbal commands.

Check this out and see the advanced state of “understanding” and “interpretation” the GPT3 has acquired,

53
@paulkapil08. I always like to ask this when speaking with hard AI advocates, at what point does a mindless algorithm stop being a mindless algorithm? Are there types of algorithm that are somehow different, not simply rules and lookup tables?
 

Buddy, have I got the book for you, to read or listen (Audible.com).

I’ve just finished my first listen through (after listening to numerous lectures by the man), a second listen is looming once my copy of the book arrives. Might even be my next review project if I can steal the time, it’ll be a wonderful change reviewing something I’m in awe of, rather than the self-indulgent daydreams of physicist philosophers turned celebrities.

This most fascinating and informative book that deals with your specific question in a way that’s simply superior to previous discussions. Fact Based and Physical Reality respecting. Here’s what Goodread.com had to say about it. Actually reader reviews are interesting and positive.

The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness by Mark Solms 4.34 · Rating details · 107 ratings · 29 reviews

For Mark Solms, one of the boldest thinkers in contemporary neuroscience, discovering how consciousness comes about has been a lifetime’s quest. Scientists consider it the “hard problem” because it seems an impossible task to understand why we feel a subjective sense of self and how it arises in the brain.

Venturing into the elementary physics of life, Solms has now arrived at an astonishing answer. In The Hidden Spring, he brings forward his discovery in accessible language and graspable analogies.

Solms is a frank and fearless guide on an extraordinary voyage from the dawn of neuropsychology and psychoanalysis to the cutting edge of contemporary neuroscience, adhering to the medically provable. But he goes beyond other neuroscientists by paying close attention to the subjective experiences of hundreds of neurological patients, many of whom he treated, whose uncanny conversations expose much about the brain’s obscure reaches.

Most importantly, you will be able to recognize the workings of your own mind for what they really are, including every stray thought, pulse of emotion, and shift of attention. The Hidden Spring will profoundly alter your understanding of your own subjective experience.


I thought all my listen to his talk had me prepared for most of the substance of the book, I was wrong.

Given your interest in AI, the last couple chapters (on where to go with these new insights) will blow you away. Guarandamnteed!

54
bt3241. How do you recognize what self awareness is in AI – does it have human attributes? It won’t be anything like a human so how do you recognize it?
Well it's complicated and I think you're coming at it with the wrong question. It more a question of how self awareness develops.

I’m not the expert, just a spectator, with my first listen through being a mind blower. The hard copy is on order, since the audio can only take one so far. Perhaps after another listen through along with some serious read’n review I’ll be able to tackle your question. Now I need to take a pass.

Except to point out that if you’re serious about your question, you need to do some serious homework for yourself.

The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness by Mark Solms
 
55

@Lausten. Define consciousness.

I’m outta time, so gotta do a quickie here

Might I suggest:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.881.176&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mark Solms 45/3

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?

In the past few years scientists and scholars in a variety of disciplines have been making concerted efforts to answer an ancient question, namely, How exactly do the physical processes in the brain cause consciousness? What is distinctive about the way in which modern scientists and scholars are approaching this question is that they are treating it as a scientific problem rather than a metaphysical one. This transition reflects the air of expectation in contemporary cognitive science to the effect that an empirical solution is imminent to a philosophical problem that previously was considered insoluble. Nevertheless, a recent authoritative review of the publications of such leading contemporary workers in the field as Francis Crick, Daniel Dennett, Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, and Israel Rosenfield has concluded that they have all failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the question (Searle 1995a). The present paper makes a psychoanalytic contribution to this interdisciplinary effort and provides an alternative answer to the question, based on Freud’s conceptualization of the problem of consciousness. The paper takes a concrete example from Searle’s review, reanalyses it within Freud’s metapsychological frame of reference, and shows how this frame provides a radical solution to the problem. This implication of Freud’s work has not hitherto been recognized and so has not received the attention it deserves.

…

The current zeitgeist is captured succinctly by the biologist Francis Crick (1994) in The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. There he advances the hypothesis that “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of per- sonal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” (p. 3). In essence this is little different from the assumption mentioned above, namely, that our conscious experiences are caused by brain processes. In fact, Crick’s hypothesis flows naturally from that assumption. For what are “you” if not your conscious experiences?

This hypothesis, too, contradicts the fundamental proposition of psychoanalysis, which takes a completely different approach to the mystery of consciousness—one that is, to my mind at least, logically compelling in a way that Crick’s hypothesis is not. What I would like to do here is outline this alternative, psychoanalytical approach to consciousness.

I realize that in presuming to explain the fundamental proposition of psychoanalysis to an audience of analysts I risk the accusation that I am carrying coals to Newcastle. But I believe that psychoanalysts do not always fully appreciate the implications of that proposition. Moreover, I believe that it contains within it a solution to the mystery of consciousness that has not previously been fully recognized and that has therefore not received the attention it deserves. In attempting to remedy that situation, I hope simultaneously to make a psychoanalytic contribution to an interdisciplinary reseach effort.

To wit, I hope to show that the question “How exactly do neurobiological processes in the brain cause consciousness?” embodies a fundamentally flawed con- ception of the nature of consciousness. As a result, the question as it stands can never be answered. What follows is an alternative conceptualization of the nature of consciousness, which I think squares more fully with reality, and which clears the way for a more useful approach to the problem.

Freud stumbled upon this alternative conception, apparently derived from the psychology of Theodor Lipps, sometime between 1895 and 1900. In doing so, he stumbled also upon a solution to the problem of the relationship between brain and mind. Though it is perhaps not so surprising that by fundamentally reconceptualizing the nature of the mind itself Freud also reconceptualized the relationship of the mind to the brain, Freud himself seems only gradually to have recognized this implication of his work.1 It is this implicit solution to the age-old problem of the relationship between brain and mind that I will spend most of this paper explicating.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
So what is the “fundamental proposition of psychoanalysis” that I have referred to? It is, of course, that mental processes are in themselves unconscious. Now before you throw up your arms in despair and conclude that I am going to bore you to tears, please note that …

(it goes on, into the heart of your question)

56

In furtherance of the above, this may be of interest,

Mark Solms 45/3

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?

Indeed, Semir Zeki, one of the leading neurophysiologists of our time, recently wrote the following in relation to visual perception: colour is the end product of two comparisons: the first one consists of comparing the reflectance of different surfaces for light of the same waveband, thus generating the lightness record of the scene for that waveband, and the second consists of comparing the three lightness records of the scene for the different wavebands, thus generating the colour.

Colour is therefore a comparison of comparisons. . . . The comparisons and their results are a property of the brain, not of the outside world, even if all the information needed to undertake the comparisons is contained in the world outside. Colour then becomes a property of the brain, a property with which it invests the surfaces outside, an interpretation which it gives to certain physical properties of objects . . . and through which it gains a knowledge about those physical properties [1993, pp. 235–236; emphasis added].
According to this way of thinking—which to my mind is unavoidable— our perceptual impression of the world as composed of such and such physical objects occupying such and such relative positions is a construction of the mental apparatus, derived from constant conjunctions of stimuli of different types, which arrive at the external sensory surfaces and are subjected to particular algorithms. The external world is in itself unknowable.


This is precisely what Anil Seth proposes with his hypothesis of ; “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality”_ Anil Seth

57
This is precisely what Anil Seth proposes with his hypothesis of ; “Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality”_ Anil Seth
How should it be interesting? Can you define it? I've listened to that video a couple times, how about a few time signatures of key part to your eyes. Because even as I become less critical of what I hear him saying, and more forgiving of his use of "hallucination," though I still think it's more lazy audience titillation, than valuable term. Basically, I'm still left feeling unimpressed, "Is that all he's got to offer," nothing in it stands out for me. Nothing offered anything for me to work with the way Solms and Damasio have.

Seems to me you think as highly of him as I’ve learn to be of Solms and his words and works. That’s why I’m asking if you can offer specifics.

 

 

Regarding Semir Zeki

Via WIKI: Zeki's scientific achievements include:

Discovery of the many visual areas of the brain and their functional specialisation for different visual attributes such as colour, motion and form.

Finding neurons in a part of the monkey visual system that would respond only when a particular colour, rather than a particular wavelength, was in their receptive fields. For example, he showed that a red-sensitive neuron would continue to respond to a red stimulus, even when it was illuminated mainly by green light. This was the first study relating colour perception to single cell physiology in the brain.

Showing that processing sites in the visual brain are also perceptual sites.

Showing that we see different attributes of visual input at different times.

Charting the activity of the brain in time and showing that different visual areas have different activity time courses.

Studying the neural correlates of subjective mental states, such as love[12] and beauty, and more recently, hate[13]


Well for starters, fixating on correlating colour recognition as a sort of key to understanding consciousness - never made any sense to me. So any grand claims based on colours, or colors, is, and will always, be a red flag for me. I have yet to hear a rational justification for the concept.

I also imagine Zeki never actually ventured into the mine field of the origins of consciousness, seems he was busy with physiology, exploring and mapping.

Looking at that list of Zeki’s achievements, I found this mystifying.

Finding neurons in a part of the monkey visual system that would respond only when a particular colour, rather than a particular wavelength, was in their receptive fields. For example, he showed that a red-sensitive neuron would continue to respond to a red stimulus, even when it was illuminated mainly by green light. This was the first study relating colour perception to single cell physiology in the brain.
A) What is the difference between a particular "colour" and a particular "wavelength"?

B) Just because neurologists have labeled a particular kind of neuron “red-sensitive” - wouldn’t be the first time neurons were misunderstood, or misinterpreted, until more complete information became available.

Beside I don’t even understand, why be surprised if the red-sensitive neurons can recognize red within a flood of green to begin with?

C) This is about perception - consciousness is something more.

D) Neural correlates are about mechanisms and the brain’s biological strategies - they are an aspects of the workings of consciousness, but there’s something more to consciousness.

58

Maybe this narrow things down a little, perhaps give us a starting point for a constructive dialogue

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? - Mark Solms

JAPA - This paper was presented as the Charles Fisher Memorial Lecture to the New York Psychoanalytic Society on May 7, 1996.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.881.176&rep=rep1&type=pdf


 

Here, then, is the fundamental proposition of psychoanalysis. To avoid any misunderstanding, I will restate it in different words:

We are aware of two different aspects of the world simultaneously.

First, we are aware of the natural processes occurring in the external world, which are represented to us in the form of our external perceptual modalities of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc.

Second, we are aware of the natural processes occurring within our own selves, which are represented to us in the form of our subjective consciousness.

We are aware of nothing else. These are the only constituents of the envelope of conscious awareness, which defines the limits of human experience. (P685)


Natural process meaning a biological cascade of events with their various emergent properties. Just because it’s tough for those still moored to an intellectual heritage that’s inextricably hobbled by an undercurrent of Abrahamic dualistic religious precepts, to accept doesn’t make it any less tenable. What’s hideous is how people like Donald Hoffman do their best to ignore it.

If there were no sentient beings equipped with the sensory organs that generate sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, etc., then the natural elements of the universe would presumably still exist in and of themselves, but they would no longer exist in the familiar form in which they are represented to us.

Likewise, if the only living things in existence were equipped with sensory organs different from our own (as are bats, for example; see Nagel 1974), then the natural elements of the universe would still exist in the same essential form, but they would be known consciously only in a form entirely foreign to us.

In short, what is constant (and therefore truly objective) are the natural elements themselves; what is inconstant (and therefore less reliable) is perceptual awareness, which can take different forms and thereby represents the universe to sentient beings in a variety of ways. (P686)


I like that paragraph because it seems to me to establish physical reality as a given, something too many philosophers seems to have a tough time accepting because there are so many imaginative games that that fact eliminates.

(to be continued - it’s a long paper)

59

Regarding #345070

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? – Mark Solms

JAPA – This paper was presented as the Charles Fisher Memorial Lecture to the New York Psychoanalytic Society on May 7, 1996.

 

Thus, the natural processes occurring inside our own selves are ultimately unknowable. Freud recognized that just as we can never know external reality directly, so too we can never know our inner selves directly.

And, more important, he thereby recognized that in our essence we are made of the same ultimate stuff as the rest of the universe—that is to say, that our own beloved selves are ultimately “similar in kind to the other natural processes of which we have obtained knowledge” (Freud 1940b, p. 283).

The only difference between our inner selves and the world around us is the fact that the natural processes occurring within us are represented on a perceptual surface and in a sensory modality different from those appropriate to the natural processes occurring around us.

This is the crux of the matter, and numerous implications flow from it.

(P688)


Something I find squirrelly is concepts like: “The external world is in itself unknowable.”

It drives me crazy, because I look at all mankind has accomplished, which could not have happened, had something not been damned knowable.

 

Of course, they are really meaning: “We can never know external reality DIRECTLY.”

Now you are talking an entirely different ballgame.

 

But one that gets lost on too many who’d rather spend time dreaming of exotic possibilities, then focus on the simple mundane natural world we exist within.

Nothing is directly knowable still leave indirect knowledge that is valid and useful and shouldn’t ought to be ignored as flippantly as many do.

Knowing some things, having error margins, gathering more information which offers more knowing, even if it’s not ultimate knowing, it’s worth fortunes.

60
Beside I don’t even understand, why be surprised if the red-sensitive neurons can recognize red within a flood of green to begin with?
Because the distinction is very subtle. Color deficiency most often is the inability to make distinction between red and green. The amazing thing is that the incoming data doesn't change at all, it is the filtering process that changes the brains interpretation of what it experiences.
C) This is about perception – consciousness is something more.
This is a perfect test of consciousness, degrees of experiential emotions . IMO, consciousness comes in all degrees from chemical interaction to self-awareness. It's not so much being conscious, as it is being conscious of something perceived by the senses, like sound or colors. . To the people with color deficiency, color filtration changes their entire world view from a dull shades of certain hues to a world filled with different and sometimes very bright colors. The experience is clearly mind altering.

People who experience colors or sounds for the first time are just overwhelmed at first. Their consciousness has suddenly expanded into a whole new dimension. The mindscape comes alive with color and/or sounds and drastically enhances consciousness (awareness) of the environment.

D) Neural correlates are about mechanisms and the brain’s biological strategies – they are an aspects of the workings of consciousness, but there’s something more to consciousness.
Yes, it is the range of perceptual awareness that defines the consciousness. A butterfly is conscious of different colors than humans. An eagle can see a mouse from a mile away, a bloodhound has 300 million scent receptors, hundreds of time more sensitive than humans, bats can see in the dark via sonar.

Each ability is a form and degree of consciousness, IMO. I believe that is is clearly a result of evolutionary processes and natural selection of those sensory abilities that offer a survival advantage.

Even innate objects can display sensitivity to different experiences, such as waves such as EM waves.

A coat hanger can be used as an antenna for tv. A fractal antenna can receive an enormous range of wave lengths. Just think of Wi-Fi i-pods. Are I-pods conscious? They are certainly sensory receptors. All they need is a processing mechanism to translate the incoming data. Some people with gold crowns were able to receive radio waves though their teeth, which kinda proves that almost anything is responsive to certain exterior pressures or irritants.