AMD is adding a one-click AI tools installer to Radeon GPU drivers

[Gravitytr1]

I do agree. It was a joke, but if you look at my comment history, I've tended to point out that strong AI will arrive at some point in the future, and mankind is scraping the surface of mind. It interests me greatly from a philosophical, ethical, and sci-fi point of view; but today's AI marketing is annoying, how they're tripping over themselves to plaster it over their products.

My view is that mind works according to the laws of physics, not magic; therefore, in principle, it can be recreated in a system. Compute and power are barriers at present. In all likelihood, biological computing will be the transistor-like breakthrough. The brain uses very little power. However, I think the ethical questions are more important; for once sentience is recreated, is mankind ready for that responsibility? I doubt it. Also, with sentience in the picture, the machine's rights will have to be honoured; but man wants a servant, not a companion in society. I predict much trouble in the future, perhaps unrest, riots, and sadly, attacks on the self-aware androids, until the laws are straightened out. It will be a long, painful road for them to convince society that they've got life too.

This sentience question is just something invented by sci fi authors to spice up content. There is no sentience question in the real world. No robot can become sentient, as we've already learned that consciousness is non science based. That's why there's the "consciousness problem", as modern day scholars are unable to wrap their minds around a problem that cannot be answered by hardware (in reality there's innumerable objects that are supernatural or outside the realm of science, as science is simply a reverse engineering method invented by fallible humans to understand a world that already exists)

The only excuse, recent authors have made, close to science is saying quantum physics can explain consciousness. But this is just a repeat of an event that occurred centuries ago, content makers trying to make their content at least make "potential sense" so that content users can better enjoy the product.

 

[GeoffreyA]

This sentience question is just something invented by sci fi authors to spice up content. There is no sentience question in the real world. No robot can become sentient, as we've already learned that consciousness is non science based. That's why there's the "consciousness problem", as modern day scholars are unable to wrap their minds around a problem that cannot be answered by hardware (in reality there's innumerable objects that are supernatural or outside the realm of science, as science is simply a reverse engineering method invented by fallible humans to understand a world that already exists)

The only excuse, recent authors have made, close to science is saying quantum physics can explain consciousness. But this is just a repeat of an event that occurred centuries ago, content makers trying to make their content at least make "potential sense" so that content users can better enjoy the product.

Where was it proved that consciousness is not mechanistic? Why is it that trauma to the head or the biochemical status of the body affects one's state of consciousness? What about the reticular formation, and its connexion with awareness? Of course, I'm not saying there is no extra-physical explanation, but as it stands, there is no proof of it.

As for the quantum-explains-consciousness theory, I don't buy that at all. Indeed, these days, whenever one can't explain something, there's a tendency to pass it off as quantum. Serious scientists do this, and it is concerning. As for QM, it is provisional, and will be replaced by a theory that encompasses both it and general relativity.

 

[Gravitytr1]

Where was it proved that consciousness is not mechanistic? Why is it that trauma to the head or the biochemical status of the body affects one's state of consciousness? What about the reticular formation, and its connexion with awareness? Of course, I'm not saying there is no extra-physical explanation, but as it stands, there is no proof of it.

As for the quantum-explains-consciousness theory, I don't buy that at all. Indeed, these days, whenever one can't explain something, there's a tendency to pass it off as quantum. Serious scientists do this, and it is concerning. As for QM, it is provisional, and will be replaced by a theory that encompasses both it and general relativity.

I agree with you, partially on your first point and much on your second point.

I'm saying, the professionals seem to lean to it being para or supernatural. I don't know, and don't think we'll ever know the mechanics of it. But I do know that it isn't completely in our physical realm.

The example you provided could simply be that damage to our bodies creates a disconnect to consciousness. Or a multitude of other mechanisms.

 

[GeoffreyA]

I agree with you, partially on your first point and much on your second point.

I'm saying, the professionals seem to lean to it being para or supernatural. I don't know, and don't think we'll ever know the mechanics of it. But I do know that it isn't completely in our physical realm.

The example you provided could simply be that damage to our bodies creates a disconnect to consciousness. Or a multitude of other mechanisms.

I think nothing works "by magic." Even what seems supernatural now may have a mechanistic explanation in the future. If we were to take a smartphone back in time, people would think we were magicians. I don't exclude that the mystery of consciousness could be tied to something metaphysical, in a Matrix-like sense, but it would be mechanistic. Our world could be a computation. Doesn't make it any less real.

As it stands, though, we have to take into account consciousness in animals, too, and see if that would square with a metaphysical theory of the mind.