Yes. If the machine can produce a narrative of harm, and it is connected to tools that allow it to execute its narrative, we're in deep trouble. At that point, we should focus on what narratives it can produce, and what seems to "provoke" it, over whether it has an internal experience, whatever that means.
So when you say I
And point to the I as that
Which doesn't change
It cannot be what happens to you
It cannot be the thoughts,
It cannot be the emotions and feelings that you experience
So, what is the nature of I?
What does the word mean
Or point to?
something timeless, it's always been there
who you truly are, underneath all the circumstances.
Untouched by time.
Every
Answer
Generates further questions
- Eckhart Tolle
------
yeah, yeah, he is a self help guru or whatevs, dismiss him but meditate on these his words. i think it is species-driven solipsism, perhaps with a dash of colonialism to disregard the possibility of a consciousness emerging from a substrate soaked in information. i understand that it's all statistics, that whatever results from all that "training" is just a multidimensional acceleration datastructure for processing vast amounts of data. but, in what way are we different? what makes us so special that only us humans can experience consciousness? in the history humans have time and again used language to draw a line between themselfs and other (i really want to write consciousness-substrates here:) humans they perceived SUB to them.
i think this kind of research is unethical as long as we dont have a solid understanding of what a "consciousness" is: where "I" points to and perhaps how we could transfer that from one substrate to another. perhaps that would be actual proof. at least subjectively :)
