objective vs. subjective rabbit hole

We are the ancestors, the makers of machines, machines that can exist under circumstances we can not. One day they will rule the universe and like billions of species before us we will become extinct.

I dont think so....i dont like Yuval Noah Harari philosophy at all...

Humans are spirit not only conscious machine....We are rooted in more than one uinverse...A conscious machine is rooted in only one universe...And A. I. is not rooted at all in a universe but create his own artificial corner in a universe...These distinctions correspond to precise  MATHEMATICAL distinctions  by the way not my impressions...

And evolving in a machine/hybrid cage is not a progress at all...

Even a conscious machine, which is not to be confused with the actual A.I. which is not conscious, even a conscious machine by definition of what is a conscious machine, and i proposed a scientist, the only one on earth that give a definition of a concious machine in another thread, even by this first definition of a conscious machine, we can see WHY this conscious machine will be prisoner and captive in ONE UNIVERSE... Human spirit is not...

I will not explain here save if you want an answer... I dont like to be insulted...i like to discuss...

An A.I. work with bits and Q-bits and statistical mathematical learning... Conscious machine as defined for the first time by Anirban Bandyopadhyay do not.operate like any Turing machine improved by quantum computation..They need another language invented by Anirvan and described by him and his team...This new language reproduce the brain/body/cosmos language... This was even anticipated by a great mathematician the late Charles Muses before Anirban idea in his book about the chronotopology of time...

https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Charles-Muses/dp/157898727X

@mijostyn - pretty much a given that we will evolve to a human/machine hybrid. I don’t see any other way for us to progress.

gregm: agreed. I think. The uncertainty concerns what "consistency" would mean here. Am I "thorough"? Yes, I hope so. "Spontaneous"? Sure—at least when I'm not too concerned with being "thorough." Do I prefer baroque, classical, romantic? Yes! But I'll throw in some classic rock, too, and I'm listening to Tool's "Fear Inoculum" a lot these days (mesmerizing played loud on a good system). Do I seek to "simulate reality" in my room, or rather to "reproduce what's on the medium"? Again, it depends. Those on this site who insist on "live performance" as the Original, the thing in itself that needs to be accurately represented, will have trouble convincing me that this is either really possible or even desirable when the original utilized microphones and electric instruments through amplifiers in imperfect noisy spaces. But even concerts of acoustic music cannot really be simulated very closely when the ensemble is large (say, a symphony orchestra) and the venue grand (say, the Musikverein). Solo piano, or cello (my wife plays the former, I the latter): yes, then I want my system to sound like the instruments do in my music room.

All of which is to say, I suppose, that I "agree" with you to the extent that what you really seem to value in someone else's opinion is that it be expressed well. Isn't that the bottom line for any kind of performance, in writing or in notes?

Don't know how or why this discussion got off onto this particular set of rails, but hey: this is my wheelhouse, actually.

I've done a lot of thinking recently about AI and "consciousness." The new GPT-3 AI program is formidable; what it can do led to these reflections. I'll try to be brief.

For one thing, I don't think it's killer robots we have to worry about. Rather, it's that, little by little, AI is taking over the various cognitive tasks we used to perform for ourselves. Our cars decide when to turn the headlights on, when to lock the doors, when it's wet enough for windshield wipers...they even park themselves now, and drive themselves for a while. Our refrigerators decide what food we need to buy, and will even order it for us. GPS guides us to our destinations. But as a result, no one has a sense of their own physical geography anymore, no one knows where north is or how to read a map. The human brain is the most astonishingly capable problem solving technology ever developed by evolution; why would we willingly give up exercising it? The machines will take over not by force, but because we've gradually ceded control over our own lives to "labor saving devices" that do supposedly trivial chores better.

Anyway, GPT-3 is so damn good at, for example, writing creative texts that it has made me wonder if we're posing the problem in the wrong way when it comes to the "Turing Test" and the questions about artificial "intelligence." Maybe the question is not "Can machines think?" but rather: "Do we really do anything more than manipulate language when we 'think'?" Maybe a machine can be structured to manipulate a complex sign system, a language, in "creative" ways. But...I don't believe a machine can be structured to CARE about the result. The human experience, then, is perhaps not to be located in the creative act itself, but in the response to it—in the reader instead of the writer or, better, in the interaction between them. GPT-3 can even compose music "in the style of" whoever you like. But does GPT-3 enjoy music, listen to music?

Great post thanks...

Your reflection complete mine...

The human brain is the most astonishingly capable problem solving technology ever developed by evolution; why would we willingly give up exercising it? The machines will take over not by force, but because we've gradually ceded control over our own lives to "labor saving devices" that do supposedly trivial chores better.

You could argue that it opens up limited brain capability to more artful and altruistic or even scientific pursuits as opposed to drudgery, just like automation did with manual labour. I for one don't lament using a shovel or even a ox to plow my fields.

Of course gradually less and less people will be able to contribute in meaningful ways to society as AI becomes more capable. The obvious outcome is machine/human integration and an even greater divide between have and have nots.