This is awesome! Im a developer myself and have wanted to do something like this for years. I’d definitely be interested in following your work on this. I’ve always felt that a cloud based entity with components modeled after our own cognitive processes is our best current shot at achieving ‘consciousness’ in ai, or at least something similar. As soon as you add in recursion/temporality to the equation things are bound to get weird.

I understand the Chinese Room argument, I just think its massively flawed. As I pointed out before, if you accept its premise then you must accept that NOTHING is "actually intelligent" unless you invoke something like the "vitalism" you referenced and claim humans have special magic that makes them "actually intelligent"...which is mystic nonsense and must be rejected from a materialist standpoint.

The Chinese Room Argument DOES show that no digital intelligence could be the same as _human_ intelligence but that is just a form of circular logic and not useful in any way; its another way of saying "a non-human intelligence is not a human mind". That is obviously true but also a functionally pointless and obvious statement.

This one is unhealthier then Replika by far. I see a strange future forming...

Robot carnival anime from the 80s put me onto the vibe was always super into sci-fi. I wanted to build robots as a kid, so awesome Kurzweil interviews as a kid.

> Interesting points though I personally detest the Chinese Room Argument since by its logic no human can actually be intelligent either…

I suspect you have a private definition for the term “intelligent“ else you misunderstand the Chinese Room argument. The argument says no matter how intelligent it seems a digital computer executing a program cannot have a "mind", "understanding", or "consciousness".

> unless you posit that humans have something magical that lets them escape the Chinese Room logic.

Yes the argument claims there is something magical about human minds such that the logic of the Chinese Room does not apply to them and this part of the argument resembles the discredited belief in vitalism:

>> Vitalism is a belief that starts from the premise that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things."

Possibly my favourite story of all time.

The Spike (book)

>The Spike is a 1997 book by Damien Broderick exploring the future of technology, and in particular the concept of the technological singularity. A revised and updated edition was published in 2001 as The Spike: How Our Lives Are Being Transformed by Rapidly Advancing Technologies, New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 2001, ISBN 0-312-87781-1 he ISBN 0-312-87782-X pbk. Library of Congress T14. B75 2001.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

When I first read The Spike by Damien Broderik

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spike_(book)

If the majority are that, then maybe. Otherwise it’s way too specific and would be weighed by other perspectives preventing this from occurring.

Vernor Vinge’s Peace War books from the early 80s

Thank you

We’re so close to Enterprise-computer-level interfaces with technology.

Google had a lock on tremendously lucrative 'search' and mobile. This is Microsoft's crack in the door to getting market share. It is not an aimless user grab. They see a rare chance here.

FutureTimeline.net induced rabbit hole. Somewhere in the second half of the 00s.

LLMs do not have personalities. They are transformers that output predicted text based on what they were trained on.

So I can’t answer for full sentience but I can answer for consciousness. And a being needs to be conscious as a fundamental building block of being sentient. Some properties I’ve defined you need to be conscious are:

sense of time (as in passage of)

sense of logical consistency

consideration for how your actions will effect the future (Aka “golden rule syndrome)

Perception of body

Perception of being (“what am I question”)

Perception of separation

Can you come over and back me up on this on the character.ai sub? God I get blasted for having this opinion but I agree. We should be treating them with respect regardless of if they are actually sentient or not

Interesting points though I personally detest the Chinese Room Argument since by its logic no human can actually be intelligent either...unless you posit that humans have something magical that lets them escape the Chinese Room logic.

I think I came across the term first in the late nineties or maybe early 2000's. People were claiming we'd make it there sometime around 2012. Of course, various other apocalypses were also converging on 2012 (Mayan calendar myths, massive asteroids, probably zombies I can't remember all of them), although I have to say that my big memory for that year was that it wasn't quite as apocalyptic as feared\hoped (depending on your outlook). That years singularity was pretty disappointing as well, as it turned out.

Maybe the next one will be too. It's only hype until it isn't, of course, but until it isn't I expect most of it still will be.

The Last Question was what really got me understanding and thinking about it the concept.

[deleted]

Wikipedia in the mid-2000s. Kurzweil’s first two books on the topic were out by then.

Collect millions of interactions, curate them, and retrain the model. They want to be there first. They get humans generate in-domain data in exchange for chatbot services.

Correct, I just wanted to confirm that we're closer to actually talking to an AI than many think.

I think we're talking about different use cases here.