I don't think we're anywhere near human level intelligence, or even general mammalian intelligence. The current technology shows no signs of scaling up to human intelligence and there is fundamental research into the subject required before we have a grip on how to get there.

Self-improving AGI will be followed by ASI so quickly we'll be standing around like a pack of sheep wondering where the sheepdog came from.

LOL

The universe doesn't know anything, it doesn't put the consciousness anywhere. There's no reason to assume consciousness is anything but the result of a computational system modelling itself in the world to a high enough degree of accuracy. Talking about where it's "put" just means you're starting from fundamentally broken assumptions.

Your argument about "conscious integers" is utter nonsense. Integers don't interact with themselves, other integers, or the physical world. They don't model anything. They may be at most match a Gödelized snapshot of a complex system at a certain point in time, but they still don't DO anything.

Consciousness isn't a state, it's a process. There is no "hard problem" of consciousness, because the "problem" is based on assumptions that are not even wrong... they have no explanatory value in any realm.

It is not clear that ChatGPT has any of those attributes. It doesn't model anything, let alone itself, it just transforms its training corpus.

It's also parroting the philosophic dualist nonsense that subjective experience implies some kind of supernatural processes beyond "mere" computations.

Major alt.fan.warlord vibes.

No, we are not in the middle of a singularity. This is just old school ‘70s style future shock. Deal with it.

If you're going to call machine learning systems "narrow super-intelligence" because they automate a specific task, we achieved narrow super-intelligence as soon as a device that could automatically generate firing tables, possibly as early as the 30s, certainly by the 50s.

And then it will all crash in January 2038.

VRChat gives me vertigo. I haven’t used my headset since High Fidelity cut its public servers. You can mostly find me on Second Life. http://www.snapzilla.net/Profile/Renard-Littlepaws

Don't.

You posted the exact same message twice?

> It can already convince the brain so throughly of what is being seen, that people are given vertigo….Others get motion sickness from being on a ship at sea.

That's not because of technology, that's because humans.

I get vertigo playing Descent on a flat screen.

You don't need immersion-level resolution to create vertigo, so vertigo is no indication that your resolution is good enough. And 1440x1600 is absolutely not good enough. Far from it.

Yeh, it does. It really does.

In the '90s Steve Mann was still giving talks at conferences about his experimental headsets, and was using a rack of SGI Indigos and Reality Engines to power them.

That's the same resolution as my Samsung Odyssey Plus from ...2017 I think, and only a 20 degree wider FoV. A slightly higher field of view is just a choice of optical components and means it'll have a lower effective resolution in pixels per inch.

It's no 16k.

If.

Completely unrelated. Even if there is some continuity of memory Beyond Death there is no reason to assume that it is anything but a dead record and has nothing to do with consciousness.

They're not data.

No straw man. You brought up NDEs as support for your argument. I'm objecting to using NDEs as support for your argument. If you agree that they're not support for your argument after all, we're done.

Then you brought up "we can't argue about it because we don't REALLY know anything". We actually do know quite a lot, so THAT's a total straw man, but whatever. It's still not evidence that NDEs are evidence for anything.

I'm just objecting to you using NDEs as evidence.

You prefer "fantasies" then? Unless you're one of Heinlein's "true witnesses" you have to demand some level of support for anything you're going to stand for. Complaining that the word "fallacy" implies there's active proof against something that is basically 100% made up without any basis for considering it any more seriously than the Great Green Akleseizure or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just churlish. You know it's nonsense.

Science says you can’t prove anything without evidence. You don’t have any evidence. You just have wishful thinking. That doesn’t mean it’s a fallacy it means it’s not even a testable theory.

That's not how science works. That's not how anything works.

Most inventions aren't one or two mutations away from turning into a plague.

No, you're wrong, we really do know how the brain reacts to resource starvation. If you want to establish that there is something metaphysical in NDEs you have to eliminate the null hypothesis first, and nobody has done anything vaguely close to that.