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

"Yes, it is the range of perceptual awareness that defines the consciousness. ..."

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.


I’ve lost track of what we are even debating. What’s the question? Are you saying gold crowns that receive radio signals, offers some insight into the workings of consciousness?


Last night I spent some time reading that paper, and was going to add this quote:

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)

WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? Solms

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


 

Instead I started watching your video and noticed it’s not the one I’d watched previously, this one was to a more grown up audience than the TED talk that so irritated me, and up to near 40 min I was good with what he was saying, then I faded out. Hope to listen to the rest today, since he’s just now getting into the neighbor where I think things get a bit squirrelly for me. I’m curious to listen to the rest, since my own understand has gone through so much evolution, that I dare say I’m listening with different ears than I was a half year ago. I’m looking forward to it and to seeing if I can still define what bothered me, or if I need to accept what he says - it’s not like I don’t appreciate the guys a genius compared to me. But, I also know geniuses can be wrong.

 

I’m running out of time, with lots of plans for me today, so need to peels off. I did find this line in another paper that touches on the key point for me. The thing, I believe, too many try dancing around . . .

"Ironically, it turns out that consciousness is lodged in the inmost interior of the brain.

Consciousness is an endogenous property of the brain; it does not stream in through the senses."

 

Mark Solms - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Solms_Unconscious.pdf. (page 91)

 

CCV3 said: I’ve lost track of what we are even debating. What’s the question? Are you saying gold crowns that receive radio signals, offers some insight into the workings of consciousness?
AFAIK, we're discussing when"consciousness" emerges" in nature and what it means to be conscious other than the human interpretation.

OK, lets reverse the logic. In a mathematical universe, knowledge and understanding begin with functional equations (a + b = c), based on the inherent values of the interacting objects. Fundamental universal logic.

From that POV, several scientist propose that quasi intelligent mathematical functions begin at quantum scale, based on the premise that certain patterns ARE conscious of their relational interactions. This is implied in Newton’s Law of Motion: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” which IMO, is the platform for emergent “self-referential” behaviors and eventually evolving into “self-awareness”.

Is Consciousness a Quantum Phenomenon?
Does Quantum Mechanics Explain Self-Awareness and Free Will?
Zia SteeleFollow, Aug 16, 2020 ·

If you’re reading this right now, you’re either a conscious being or an internet bot. (Or both.) That’s pretty obvious, but what’s not obvious is what makes you conscious. Consciousness is defined as knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists.
It allows us to be aware of our surroundings and our own mental, physical and emotional state. Despite the fact that we experience consciousness everyday, we don’t fully understand it. Scientists still aren’t sure exactly where consciousness originates. Is it in the brain? Can plants, fungi or bacteria be conscious? What about AI? I think the dilemma surrounding consciousness is summed up well by this quote from Scientific American:
“Ultimately what we need is a satisfying scientific theory of consciousness that predicts under which conditions any particular physical system — whether it is a complex circuit of neurons or silicon transistors — has experiences.
Furthermore, why does the quality of these experiences differ? Why does a clear blue sky feel so different from the screech of a badly tuned violin? Do these differences in sensation have a function, and if so, what is it? Such a theory will allow us to infer which systems will experience anything. Absent of a theory with testable predictions, any speculation about machine consciousness is based solely on our intuition, which the history of science has shown is not a reliable guide.
more........
CCv3 said: “Ironically, it turns out that consciousness is lodged in the inmost interior of the brain. Consciousness is an endogenous property of the brain; it does not stream in through the senses.”

Mark Solms – https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Solms_Unconscious.pdf. (page 91)


Perhaps this is a limiting perspective. According to Tegmark it makes no difference what the individual properties are, but that it is the atomic and molecular pattern in which the object is arranged that makes it conscious, regardless of the method of exchange of data. Neural networks are evolved distribution networks for most most, but not all, living organisms. Yet all living organisms respond to exterior pressures. Consciousness?

He used one of the most persuasive arguments with his example of a human’s head and a basket of fruit and vegetables and the question: “Why is one object conscious and the other not?”, and continues: “It is simply food rearranged. It is the pattern in which the atoms and molecules are arranged that makes the difference”

IMO, this is true. Basically all biology consists of bio-chemicals arranged in specific organic patterns which produces a living organism to begin with. Therefore if an organism acquires consciousness or intelligence, it is the pattern in which the organism’s organics are arranged. There is no magical super-natural interference that happens for humans only. Humans are subject to the same universal laws as everything else in the universe.

And consciousness seems to emerge very early in living organisms, such as single celled paramecium, which suggests that consciousness and intelligence occur in a hierarchy of expressions from deterministic response from simple “sensitivity”, to choice of response from “active observation”

Evolution is the Master of Invention. Natura Artis Magistra.

I’m running out of time, with lots of plans for me today, so need to peels off. I did find this line in another paper that touches on the key point for me. The thing, I believe, too many try dancing around . . .
I agree, but I do enjoy our discussions. I realize some of my speculations are questionable, but as Antonsen posits: "When you look at something from many different perspectives, it generates deeper understanding of what it is you are observing".

Well I’ve listen to that Anil Seth talk again and beyond finding nothing objectionable, I better appreciate that the TED talk was irritating in a ‘style’ sense, with his simplifications and that sexy “hallucination” word. But that’s done for the audience’s benefit and it is what it is. I know I can be over critical and opinionated on style points.

Then reading your above comment, I’m thinking another problem was that I attached your talk of a mathematical universe and the other exotic notions you share up there (#345105 and others) with Seth - but that he actually says nothing about any of that. He does remain focused on the organism and I feel silly for harshing him so much.

 

We use math to study the universe. To call the universe math is an escape from physical reality and an immersion into the Mindscape, another example of humanity’s endless search for god. It’s not needed and it adds tons of distractions that pile up into utter confusion - and keeps us from looking at the actual situation and story - which can only be done by understand the iky, squishy, slimly world of biology and Earth’s evolution.

Trying to transfer biological function onto the inanimate matter of the cosmos, seems like creating a new god.

 

He used one of the most persuasive arguments with his example of a human’s head and a basket of fruit and vegetables and the question: “Why is one object conscious and the other not?”, and continues: “It is simply food rearranged. It is the pattern in which the atoms and molecules are arranged that makes the difference”
I read that and it rings of useless profundity, akin to the breathless sports announcer broadcasting: The team that gets the most points wins!!!
@ W4U. Perhaps this is a limiting perspective: (don't I wish I could have put that sentence together, but alas it was Solms) - " “Ironically, it turns out that consciousness is lodged in the inmost interior of the brain. Consciousness is an endogenous property of the brain; it does not stream in through the senses.”
Yes, it is limiting, but it's clear and knowable and boils down to a statement that Consciousness is a result of biological evolution. If you don't want limits watch Star Trek, or Star Wars, there's a limitless world in action. But I dare say that world is also a product of and confined to our Mindscape with it awesome abilities to imagine and fantasize.

A key to science is that the questions we ask, define the quality of the answer we receive. And it seems to me your question are focused on finding answers on the outside, rather than within.

 

Last night I was listen to the final chapter of my first listen through Antonio Damasio’s “Self Comes To Mind, Construction The Conscious Mind” - sure I know audiobooks are inferior is sitting down and reading the words and having the book at hand for jumping back to this or that page for refreshing and such. But, if the option is audio or nothing, then audio is a nice, if imperfect, solution.

But the thing that struck me with Damasio’s words (as I was also mulling over your above comment, and my reaction to it, which I had read earlier) and Solms and I’ll admit Seth’s talk, is that it was flowing into my system smoothly it feels good, intellectual connections were being made that resonate with my own impressions. I also noticed how it had a feeling attached to it and that it was emotionally pleasing.

Then I read your stuff, where so much makes sense, only to suddenly takes these share turns, I’m supposed to think the universe is math, rather than math simply being a wonderful tool of observing and understanding the universe. And I’m plunged right back into quasi religious philosophical thinking, that’s more about indulging our ego and need for some god, then actually simply observing and learning from what we can know with confidence. For me, it’s like finger nails be scrapped across the chalkboard.

(sorry I’m not trying to offend, just struggling to explain myself.)

 

I heard a cute thing about philosophy and philosophers that holds, for me, more than a grain of truth: “We should listen to philosophers questions - but not to their answers.”

 

?

A key to science is that the questions we ask, define the quality of the answer we receive. And it seems to me your question are focused on finding answers on the outside, rather than within.
I am glad you continued reading Seth. I find myself agreeing with most of his thought processes.

I look outside, not for supernatural causality, but natural universal causality because that is where it started. The potential for intelligent consciousness must have emerged early on in the formation of the universe. And IMO, this potential is due to the fact that the universe itself has a quasi intelligence in that it MUST function in a logical manner, which translates into processing of values by way of mathematical functions. IOW. emergent conscious intelligence did not happen by pure chance, nor by endowment by a supernatural causality, but by probability, that enormous range of possibilities between 0% and 100% extremes.

Input <–> Function <–> Output . From my perspective, that suggests an unconscious quasi intelligent process. Dynamic evolution does the rest in animate organisms, which are little universes in themselves. Consciousness is an emergent property, but evolved via a hierarchy of sensory refinements and ability for internal processing of external data.

This is why we can make artificial intelligence, which display a form of consciousness. Ask any GPT3 if it sees itself as conscious and it will answer you spontaneously in the affirmative, because it really believes that it is conscious. What are you going to do to correct it’s assumption. Argue with the AI? I see a certain irony in that.

I heard a cute thing about philosophy and philosophers that holds, for me, more than a grain of truth: “We should listen to philosophers questions – but not to their answers.”
Oh, that is so true. But I believe that there is also a constructive aspect to looking at the world from several objective perspectives only leads to greater understanding. AFAIK, scientific theory starts with a philosophical assumption and proposition.....: )

But I am keenly aware that my musings are probative, even if my writing style sometimes may seem declarative. …

CCv3 quoted: 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.
What about the weird and sometimes alarming antics of humans as they try to solve human problems, like creating ice cream or recognizing cars on the road? Car accidents are a major cause of death in human controlled traffic and it is not likely that human drivers will get smarter anytime soon.

The point is that, instead of responding to human made algorithms, the new AI writes its own algorithms based on textual requests, basically by the same learning process as humans.

CCv3 quoted: 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)
Actually we are not aware of the natural processes occurring within our own selves. Homeostasis is a purely subconscious process, but it is the single most important brain function that keeps our body functional. (Seth). Observing a flower and processing red wave lengths does not keep us alive. It helps us as a survival mechanism but those are two different things.

Think of it. Interoception is a subconscious and autonomous control mechanism dedicated to the single task of keeping us alive, and only when something goes wrong does the control mechanism issue a warning in the form of pain or some other discomfort experience in the conscious part of the brain.

When the trillions of internal electro-chemical processes, along with bacterial activities, function smoothly, we are not aware of anything that goes on inside us. It is a remarkable state of affairs. We are not in control of what keeps us alive, other than exercise, getting sufficient sleep and eating a healthy diet. All the benefits resulting from these activities are internally processed without us ever knowing it except as an general feeling of wellness.

This is where I ask how does the brain control these subconscious processes without conscious control? This is what I believe Tegmark observed that these self-referentially conscious interoceptive processes acquire a certain autonomy and are able to act independent from our self-aware conscious exteroceptive processes.

I do believe that everyone is in agreement that ultimately all acquired abilities conscious or subconscious are a result of evolved survival strategies via the process of natural selection. 13 billion years of self-organization from chaos , into simple patterns, into complex patterns , each hierarchy acquiring more complex and sophisticated functional abilities, sensory cognition, and ability to experience and react to specific stimulus.

Right and I maintain humanity spends way too much time worrying about the universe out there, something that we’ll never get close to.

But our own Earth, that being that provides our life support system, and in fact that created us human, that we dismiss with such flippant disregard that, well, that it simply pisses me off, no matter how much mind-over-matter self-counseling I do. :wink:

Now, over the past couple years with the help of Donald Hoffman, I’ve evolved in understanding and to the point that it offending me - and I’ve come to see it as nothing so much as escapism from what we really should have focused on all along. And now it’s too late for people to change, and Earth is too far into the cataclysm to do much in any event. So guess I come on strong, but, what we are doing to this Earth, and the hell hole we’ve guaranteed for our children and other future generations as they experience Earth becoming ever more hostile and deadly. Great job, delusion heaven-blinded thinking.


Homeostasis is a purely subconscious process,
Purely, not quite, what about those feelings that force you to maintain it.

You dismiss the importance of the subconscious, and also of the many things it actually does,

after all our conscious is limited to only a few bits of information, the subconscious is constantly keeping track of things so you conscious is freed it. That’s an important point because most seem to believe that conscious and subconscious is like a light bulb, on or off. Turns out to be nothing like that.

For more on that Damasio’s the Self Comes to Mind, his last chapters deal with that and it’s rather mind expanding.

Then by serendipity I stumbled on a new, Anton wonderful person Petrov video that turned out a great post script to that book. It was about an anomaly in Ingenuity’s last fight and then dissecting the cause of the mishap and why it didn’t crash. It was pretty fascinating and seems to relate to how primitive creatures started on the road to consciousness. And AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IoMiwxL2wU

 

 

Purely, not quite, what about those feelings that force you to maintain it.
When all is well there is only a feeling of well-being. Only when things go wrong does the system warn you with pain, hunger, sweating, running a fever, or general feelings of discomfort. That is when we see a doctor, because we have no way of diagnosing ourselves and taking corrective action
You dismiss the importance of the subconscious, and also of the many things it actually does.
Nooooo, on the contrary, the subconscious is what keeps you alive. It is the autonomous control mechanism that regulates all internal physical activity, completely independent of the conscious brain.

Homeostatic immunity and the microbiota

Homeostasis is brought about by a natural resistance to change when already in the optimal conditions,[2] and equilibrium is maintained by many regulatory mechanisms. All homeostatic control mechanisms have at least three interdependent components for the variable being regulated: a receptor, a control centre, and an effector.[3][/quote] The receptor is the sensing component that monitors and responds to changes in the environment, either external or internal. Receptors include thermoreceptors, and mechanoreceptors. Control centres include the respiratory centre, and the renin–angiotensin system. An effector is the target acted on, to bring about the change back to the normal state. At the cellular level, receptors include nuclear receptors that bring about changes in gene expression through up-regulation or down-regulation, and act in negative feedback mechanisms. An example of this is in the control of bile acids in the liver. [/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis

Moreover, bacteria play a vital role in maintaining homeostasis. Our brain has absolutely no control over these organisms. They have independently evolved to assist their host in maintaining good health.

Abstract [quote] The microbiota plays a fundamental role in the induction, education and function of the host immune system. In return, the host immune system has evolved multiple means by which to maintain its symbiotic relationship with the microbiota. The maintenance of this dialogue allows the induction of protective responses to pathogens and the utilization of regulatory pathways involved in the sustained tolerance to innocuous antigens. [/quote] [quote]The ability of microbes to set the immunological tone of tissues, both locally and systemically, requires tonic sensing of microbes and complex feedback loops between innate and adaptive components of the immune system. In this review, we will highlight the dominant cellular mediators of these interactions and discuss emerging themes associated with our current understanding of the homeostatic immunological dialogue between the host and its microbiota.[/quote] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604871/

What Is Homeostasis?

Homeostasis is the process that allows the body to reach and maintain a certain state of equilibrium.

These processes take place mostly without our conscious awareness.

Homeostasis refers to the body's need to reach and maintain a certain state of equilibrium. The term was first coined by a psychologist named Walter Cannon in 1926.1 More specifically, homeostasis is the body's tendency to monitor and maintain internal states, such as temperature and blood sugar, at fairly constant and stable levels.
Homeostasis refers to an organism's ability to regulate various physiological processes to keep internal states steady and balanced. These processes take place mostly without our conscious awareness.
How Is It Maintained?
Your body has set points for a variety of things—including temperature, weight, sleep, thirst, and hunger. When the level is off, homeostasis will work in your body to correct it. For example, sweating when you get too hot or shivering when you get too cold.
One prominent theory of human motivation, known as drive reduction theory, suggests that homeostatic imbalances create needs. These needs to restore balance drives people to perform actions that will return the body to its ideal state.2

Another way to think of it is like the thermostat in your house or the air conditioning system in your car. Once set at a certain point, these systems work to keep the internal states at these levels. When the temperature levels drop in your house, your furnace will turn on and warm things up to the preset temperature.


In the same way, if something is out of balance in your body, a variety of physiological reactions will kick in until the set point is once again reached. Here’s how the primary components of homeostasis work:

Stimulus: A stimulus from a change in the environment kicks something out of balance in the body. Receptor: The receptor reacts to the change by informing the control unit. Control Unit: The control unit then communicates the change needed to bring the body back into balance. Effector: The effector receives this information and acts on the change that is needed.
A negative feedback loop will work to decrease the effect of the stimulus while a positive feedback loop will increase it. In homeostasis, negative feedback loops are most common as the body is typically attempting to decrease the effect of the stimulus to get the body back to equilibrium. 3 Addiction Can Significantly Impact a Brain's Chemistry or Homeostasis
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-homeostasis-2795237#

From that same article:

Impact of Homeostasis Homeostasis involves both physiological and behavioral responses.

In terms of behavior, you might seek out warm clothes or a patch of sunlight if you start to feel chilly. When you start to feel chilled, you might also curl your body inward and keep your arms tucked in close to your body to keep in the heat.


I couldn’t argue against any of what you shared up there. Point is, there’s more to it than that.

Homeostatic Consciousness: A New Approach to an Old Problem? Consciousness might be understood physically in terms of metabolic processes. Posted May 11, 2021 | Carlos Montemayor Ph.D. Theory of Consciousness | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader | PsychologyToday.com

KEY POINTS
Homeostasis could explain consciousness in physical terms.
The biological roots of consciousness are deeply related to emotions.
Attention does not depend on homeostasis and can explain many types of unconscious reasoning.


 

Homeostasis is the critical biological process through which the constant regulation of biochemical signals and functions is achieved at equilibrium. The most important functions in humans for regulating and monitoring vital metabolic processes are all homeostatic, such as body temperature, oxygen, blood pressure, and glucose regulation. In fact, homeostatic functions are so fundamental for the sustenance of life that many fatal diseases can be described as failures of homeostasis, such as diabetes. Mark Solms argues in his important book The Hidden Spring that our conscious experience, grounded in our emotions, is regulated in a similar homeostatic fashion. How can this rich subjective experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness) be reduced to a homeostatic process?

To help illustrate this idea, let’s look at the relation between temperature regulation in mammals and the regulation of emotions. Mammals regulate their core temperature through the hypothalamus and a set of distributed sensors around their bodies. Like other homeostatic systems, the mechanism responsible for core temperature regulation involves a specific brain region that communicates with the rest of the body, in this case, via the autonomic nervous system (mostly through the sympathetic branch). There are other homeostatic systems that interact with the temperature regulation system, and all of them must interact in unison in order to achieve optimal living conditions while also responding rapidly to urgent internal or external changes. When it comes to emotions, as Solms points out, the basic idea is that equilibrium feels good (e.g., predictive functions are working well), while disequilibrium feels bad (e.g., uncertainty is prevailing). Presumably, this “bad feeling” urges a change that would help the system return to a better-feeling equilibrium state.

Now consider the fight-or-flight response. …


 

 

 

We want to highlight two implications of Solms’s view. As we pointed out in a previous post, artificial intelligence need not be conscious and probably cannot ever be conscious because of the importance of biological homeostasis. This is because, on our approach, there is a more fundamental and general distinction between consciousness and attention. Therefore, the consciousness and attention dissociation framework is not only compatible with Solms’s view, but it also explains further implications of his account. For instance, this dissociation framework elucidates the difference between homeostatic-dependent conscious awareness of time and phenomenally unconscious time perception (Montemayor, 2017), among other dissociations (e.g., color detection versus color perception). The key aspect of the consciousness-attention dissociation is the information processing role of attention that does not rely on consciousness, but may require a “primitive” form of consciousness in assessing a homeostasis of this information processing. This is a theoretical possibility that needs to be studied in more detail.

 

References

Montemayor C. & Haladjian, H. H. (2015). Consciousness, Attention, and Conscious Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Montemayor C. (2017). Conscious awareness and time perception. PsyCh Journal, 6(3), 228–238.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.173.
Solms, M. (2019). The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle. Frontiers in Psychology, 9:2714.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02714.
Solms, M. (2021). The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. W. W. Norton and Company.

 

Something to point out.

AI is in its first plase an artificial man-made construct, a simple tool with the purpose to do a task. It does what it’s designed to to nothing more nothing less, aborrations to expectancy in that are desing flaws where the function isn’t specified sufficiently enough. This base can be applied to every tool in general, be it a knife or a computer algorithm.

In order for a tool to become an extinction level threat, it has to have the capability for it, be it intentional or accidental. Normally a tool has the capabilities with which it has been made, the roughly new developement of in fact learning AI seems to have had changed that, it presented the thought of a tool which does learn new capabilities and with that becoming a possible threat.

But let’s remember, even a learning tool is desinged to learn what it’s made for to learn. Meaning a image recognition system does only learn to recognize images, it can’t even do something else, it is only the sume of calculations in shape of a neural network.

 

The main question here is about Self-Aware AI though. Which would be a self-aware tool, what seems to be a stretch to being not a straight tool anymore. And if mankind does indeed make such a thing, it would pose a threat like any other human with similar capabilities and awareness. Here with increased capabilities, increases the magnitude of threat.

Some practical question is know: if it happens, how would it occur. Either mankind developes and creates Self-aware AI on purpose or something developes accidental.

I don’t know for sure that mankind hasn’t made Self-aware AI already but i think its very highly unlikely. In future though, mankind seems to have the necessary potential to do it.

Regarding the accidental developement, this sounds like non biologic evolution or a tool-based extention of it, the needed mutations occur in known biology and known IT differently. In biology there are basically physical particals(molecules/-chains) colliding randomly in a defined space, the chaotic manner does the actual mutating part. In IT based systems on the other hand, do small voltage differences represent binary information on which the calculation is based on. These are bound, literally and functional, to their physical hardware. Which does, to te best of my knowlege, not change unless interfered with from outside. The amount of decisively enough chaotic interference, which indeed resembles the main requirement for mutation, is tremendously low. Would it be different, IT systems weren’t that reliable or in order to maintain reliability were more intensely shieldet against said interference. Mainly because random changes aren’t desired to begin with. - Bottom-line, i don’t see any room for purely accidental developement leading to Self-aware AI - - Sidenote: this wouldn’t be strict artificial inteligence anymore, would it?

 

My conclusion, as long as mankind doesn’t do something reckless like creating a doomsday AI, there isn’t much more to worry than what humans would do to themselves.

My conclusion, as long as mankind doesn’t do something reckless like creating a doomsday AI, there isn’t much more to worry than what humans would do to themselves.
 

Drones Autonomously Hunt and Kill Humans

The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true “fire, forget and find” capability.
Yes, this is programmed. But a one-time colleague of mine fat-fingered a query and caused an OS deployment to all connected machines rather than just the test/control deployment.

Mistakes happen.

I couldn’t argue against any of what you shared up there. Point is, there’s more to it than that.
Oh I agree, but there is less to it than conscious control. Homeostasis is independent from conscious control, yet it is thermal homeostasis that keeps you alive as it does every warm blooded animal. Cold blooded animals do not have thermal homeostasis.

Definition of Warm-blooded

Mitochondria, which is called ‘powerhouse of the cell‘ produces energy which is utilized by the body to maintain its temperature. All the lifetime, consistent energy is produced to maintain the body temperature which lies between 35-40°C.
Content: Cold blooded Vs Warm-blooded
Cold-blooded animals have fluctuating body temperature which follows the external temperature and fails to maintain thermal homeostasis. ... They require less energy to maintain their body temperature, hence they need less amount of food.Apr 20, 2017
https://biodifferences.com/difference-between-cold-blooded-and-warm-blooded-animals.html#
Homeostatic Consciousness: A New Approach to an Old Problem? Consciousness might be understood physically in terms of metabolic processes. Posted May 11, 2021 | Carlos Montemayor Ph.D. Theory of Consciousness | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader | PsychologyToday.com
This may be compared to a thermometer which controls your home's heating and cooling. It is purely Electro/Chemical function in the body's neural network.
<b>KEY POINTS</b>

Homeostasis could explain consciousness in physical terms.
The biological roots of consciousness are deeply related to emotions.
Attention does not depend on homeostasis and can explain many types of unconscious reasoning.

When it comes to emotions, as Solms points out, the basic idea is that equilibrium feels good (e.g., predictive functions are working well), while disequilibrium feels bad (e.g., uncertainty is prevailing). Presumably, this “bad feeling” urges a change that would help the system return to a better-feeling equilibrium state.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-consciousness/202105/homeostatic-consciousness-new-approach-old-problem

Allow me to add; that when homeostasis does go wrong, i.e. the body is unable to autonomously correct the imbalance, the emotion become consciously experienced in the form of pain or sweating, or dizziness. When the homeostasis is on autopilot it is completely unconscious in that the body just feels comfortable, Anil Seth explained that homeostasis does not allow you to consciously inspect your internal organs (exactly where is your spleen?). That part of the brain is strictly used for control, not for conscious awareness of organ location or conscious control…

Note the important role microtubules play in this scenario. All these unconscious electro-chemical signals (data) are processed by the microtubules inside the neurons and axons, but are redirected to the subconscious part of the brain. (Level II), which btw. is not affected by anesthesia (Hameroff)

This is why the subconscious brain can still maintain homeostasis, while the conscious brain is anesthetized, i.e. keep your body alive while YOU are absent.

– Bottom-line, i don’t see any room for purely accidental developement leading to Self-aware AI – – Sidenote: this wouldn’t be strict artificial inteligence anymore, would it?
As far as I understand it, its just a matter of neural numbers and complexity. While GPT3 has 175 billion "neural connections" and can pass the Turing test easily, it is just a child as compared to an adult human brain which contains 125 trillion synapses.

125 trillion synapses

In particular, the cerebral cortex -- a thin layer of tissue on the brain's surface -- is a thicket of prolifically branching neurons. "In a human, there are more than 125 trillion synapses just in the cerebral cortex alone," said Smith. That's roughly equal to the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies, he noted.Nov 17, 2010
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117121803.htm#

 

The developers of GPT3 believe that they have not yet reached an upper limit of processing power and “internal self-referential” processes.

Already, if you ask a GPT3 if it is conscious, it will answer in the affirmative and how can you counter that? Argue with the AI?

If consciousness is an emergent quality of certain complex physical brain patterns, it should be possible to copy this complexity and perhaps create a true artificial “conscious intelligence”.?

 

As far as I understand it, its just a matter of neural numbers and complexity.
Agrred, and disagreed. In sense of an existing pattern like a executing computation, quantity an complexity in the correct way to compute, is all there is to it in the end.

However, there is a overlooked point. This point is change, or rather the capability for change. In any artificial neural network i know of, the mathematical simulated neural connections between the neurons don’t change. Change in order for it to learn is numerologically simulated by values representing preferences which are guiding where and an which way each impulse travels through the neural network. This means the actual connections between the neurons which building up the neural network do not change at all, they are pre programmed and fixed. Thus leading to an incapability to change itself fundamentally. And if there is no room for change, in order to achieve artificial awareness, it has to be sufficiently programmed from the start.

Naturally existing neural networks build throug an evolutionary effect like inside human brains for example, do consist of changing neural pathways. And not just changes in transmitter intensity but a total grow or decline of the physical connection between the neurons. Where this kind of growing change not possible it couldn’t have come to any evolutionary development of neural networks to beginn with.

When i have to make an example, and take you, as i consider you to be a self-aware human beeing. Are your actual thoughts, the exactly way you think what your’e thinking always total identical, in past, present and future?

 

Already, if you ask a GPT3 if it is conscious, it will answer in the affirmative and how can you counter that? Argue with the AI?
Quite simple: figure out the needet "formula" that is consideret to be the function of self-awarenes, and look "inside" GPT3's system if it consists or includes the correct function we're looking for. - perfectly verifiable and measurable

 

If consciousness is an emergent quality of certain complex physical brain patterns, it should be possible to copy this complexity and perhaps create a true artificial “conscious intelligence”.?
Fully agreed, only questions are how to engineer it and if not how does it happens on its own.

Little divagation side note:

Creating something on purpose requires to understand it, if you fail to create artificial awareness what means you don’t fully understand awareness, are you truly fully self aware? - self aware awareness ; or is this a next level of self awareness? (rhetorical question)

 

Good point. It is the microtubules that provide the variably neural pathways. That is why Alzheimers disease is the result of “microtubule catastrophe”.

But I am not so sure we are not able to build variable electrochemical neural networks. It may even be possible that the new GPT4 can design it’s own neural networks.
The remarkable thing is that you can verbally ask a GPT do perform a task and it will teach itself how to do that and write the actual program for you.

The New GPT AI are “text” based , just like humans. The big difference is that the GPT AI is able to learn to read and understand the definitions of text many times faster than humans. What may take a human years to learn a subject, the AI can learn this in a few hours.

Unlike humans, an AI is able to monitor its internal electrochemical data processes.
Homeostasis in humans is a subconscious control system and we are aware of its status only if something goes wrong. The AI is able to “consciously” monitor and control the data flow if it so desires.

It’s all woo ennit? No matter how autonomous the Net becomes. No matter the spooky synergies of emergent complex behaviour. AI, like economic nuclear fusion and interstellar communication and the rest of sci-fi, are… is all far more likely than universal social justice I realise, but that’s the only fantasy worth pursuing.