And is there some kind of test you can perform to distinguish between "an Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a Virtual Intelligence VI,"? How can we even prove that other human beings are actually self-aware and not p-zombies? Each person knows for themself, but you have to infer it for everyone else.
That's irrelevant. The idea that we'll somehow stumble into making a sentient machine is preposterous -- if we ever create one, we will know exactly what sentience is and how to prove it.
That's actually something of a plot point in various parts of the game series.
How do you know for yourself?
I agree with you in some regards because I like nomenclature to reflect reality but (and I only watched the first couple of minutes of the video) I don't think that would have altered the behaviour of the people in that video.
"AGI" that "thinks like humans do" will never happen (unless someone can digitally simulate a human brain and all its sensory inputs down to the atomic level). Many of the folk who talk about it both pro and anti seem to be dualists to me - they talk as if there is something "special" that humans do.
In the R&P section I long argued that we were in fact p-zombies because when folk were chattering about "qualia" they'd say "imagine a red apple" or even more basic "imagine red" and ask where that "qualia" came from and I assumed my private behaviour was the same as theirs. i.e. I see no redness in my mind's eye. Now I know I am aphantasic I realise that my private behaviour is vastly different to the majority of folk. Perhaps I am a p-zombie and they aren't. That's a long-winded way of saying, just because an AI may do something in a different manner to humans would not preclude them being as "sentient" as a human.
Why? We do not know much about how the current crappy AIs' "emergent" behaviour arises, as they get increasingly complex I think we will know less and less about the nitty-gritty of "how" their emergent behaviour arises - just like our understanding of the emergent behaviours of humans i.e. sentience - we know it's an emergent behaviour of a watery bag of chemicals that reacts in certain ways to external and internal stimulus, but we don't know the "how".
Because I experience being me.
Right, suddenly AI developers are manipulating the Weave. That's just marketing talk to make AI seem more mysterious than it is.
And you may not have watched that far into the video but some people have taken it even farther than Blake Lemoine. Not only do they believe that their chatbots are sentient, some people think they are the "voice of God". There are people who want worship AI and create religions centered on this belief. (and not just ironically or as some kind of joke, apparently)
Don't know what the highlighted means?
Practicing alchemy if you want (the Weave is a DnD thing). Harnessing mystical programming powers.
To some extent they are at the moment trying different "things" not knowing what the outcomes will be, that's just typical research, especially in a newish domain. But putting that aside - no one programmed the AIs to hallucinate i.e. to tell lies, to get the wrong answer in how many Rs in strawberry, to try and not be shutdown - that's all been emergent behaviour and that's the part that the scientists are trying to understand. And because a lot of this research and work is being done under commercial pressures the research on the "how" takes a backseat to the outputs.
Yep that's always going to be problem for humans. I've always thought Pratchett renaming of humans from "Homo sapiens " to "Pan narrans" i.e. the storytelling chimpanzee makes a powerful point (I know that it may not have originated with Pratchett). We project our narratives onto the world, which is why we tell stories about gods creating the world, about spirits churning up the volcanoes. And when something mimics human public behaviour we are primed to consider that behaviour is evidence of another thinking, feeling, sentient creature/creation.
I thought the answer to that is obvious: They don't provide information, they provide noise that looks like information; they simply got really good at making it look like information. Their hallucinations are just noise that doesn't look quite right.
