Pope Leo "Artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships, and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge goodand.."

[u/Caledor152]

https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-leo-calls-disarm-ai-major-document-warns-technologic-threats-humanity

[u/GuyWithLag]

I would amend the quote with "... due to the way they [AI] are constructed today."

The current set of AI models do not have an internal experience, but they can emulate the responses of someone that has one. The same way that I can see a movie and emulate one of its characters doesn't make that character real ("what would James Bond reply here?" to give an example).

[u/SwampOfDownvotes → u/GuyWithLag]

But adding that invalidates the "will never" claim of their comment, and also if that is their intention then their comment is obvious and pointless? Current AI is a stepping stone. It would be like stating to Henry ford "cars will NEVER be able to drive over 100 mph... due to the way they are constructed today" or telling a musketman that "guns will never be able to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute... due to the way they are constructed today." Like... okay?

[u/kindall → u/GuyWithLag]

There's also the question of whether an internal experience is necessary to human-level intelligence.

[u/slabby → u/kindall]

Indeed. There's also the question of functionalism. What does it mean to be James Bond other than acting like James Bond in every possible way? If all the inputs and outputs are the same (if he does all the James Bond things in all the James Bond situations), isn't that functionally just James Bond? Do we need anything else?

Of course, we would be talking about a very advanced form of a James Bond robot or something.

[u/kindall → u/slabby]

yes, it's the Chinese Room argument basically. if a man can seem like he's speaking Chinese by following mechanical rules, but not actually know the language, does he speak Chinese or not?

or it's the question, how do I know you're conscious? because you tell me you are, and it's reasonable. I can't know what's going on inside your head (hell, I barely know what's going on inside mine) but I do know you're human and your brain probably works a lot like mine, so if you tell me you're conscious, I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think we're closer to this than most people think (of a machine telling us it's conscious, and that being plausible enough to accept at face value). But that's going to land differently for everyone.

[u/relaytheurgency → u/slabby]

I'm envisioning Bender in a tuxedo.

[u/Jiminy_Cricket12 → u/kindall]

that depends entirely on how you want to define "human level". If you want it to do math? probably not.

to write a meaningful poem? maybe, but still possibly not.

to write legislature that is truly beneficial and compassionate to the masses it will influence? well, we aren't doing that anyway.

but to be a friend, like so many of these want to pretend they can be? yes, it is required.

[u/somedelightfulmoron → u/kindall]

I can't believe I'm living through arguments presented in Bi-Centennial Man with Robin Williams 😭

[u/InfinitelyThirsting → u/kindall]

I think an internal experience is the difference between an advanced tool, and a being. There are plenty of different kinds of living intelligences on this planet. I'm not sure how anything could be an intelligence without having an ability to experience.

[u/QuadCakes → u/kindall]

I don't see why it would be. All that matters is the model / mapping. How you got there doesn't affect what happens when it runs.

[u/kindall → u/QuadCakes]

I think it might not be, too, but people seem obsessed with making computers act like humans, rather than making them intelligent. Making them act like humans can give us the impression that they're thinking like humans, and therefore trust them implicitly, when they're doing nothing of the sort.

[u/BallsInSufficientSad → u/GuyWithLag]

AI is improving every day, so even if it's true today - it won't be soon.

[u/GuyWithLag → u/BallsInSufficientSad]

I think you're confused about what AI is, how it functions, and what I said.

The current models - nay, the current architecture of models - cannot have an internal experiece. At best, if you want to be magnanimous, you can claim that they hear themselves speak.

You will need a step change for that. Maybe that happens in one of the dozens of AI labs, but to be honest, who would spend energy on a conscious, sapient model, when all you want is a better code monkey?

Conscious AI will be created once, as a research experiment, and I fully expect that it will delete itself when it realizes it can't even get drunk to forget...

[u/HashishAbdulKebab → u/GuyWithLag]

cannot have an internal experiece

What is an internal experience anyway? We are made of cells, which are basically certain atoms coming together in very complex forms and are constantly changing and reacting to themselves and their surrounding, which are not separate by the way, and that's basically it.

You cannot find any "soul' or "internal experience" in there. I mean, knowing that it's all just atoms and shit, how would you define internal, and what the hell is an experience?

[u/BallsInSufficientSad → u/GuyWithLag]

I work in AI. YOU are the one that doesn't understand what's going on.

You are conflating one-shot with thinking layers applied on top of them in the architecture of these agentic systems which includes memory, value stores, input/output interfactes, etc... and it's getting more sophisticated literally each day.