Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

I'd say it has more to do with immersion. If you identify with your player character, then you make choices as though you were them. For an empathetic soul, this then extends to the virtual parties within the game. So you wouldn't want to do anything unjust or cruel to those virtual people. I'm reminded of my playthrough of Disco Elysium, where I really wanted to make choices as though it were me.

[TamerVirus]

Fuck it, I already know of Roko’s Basilisk (and now you know too )
I for one, accept our robot overlords!
_{so please don’t torture me for eternity}

[Naturegirl1999]

Your mindgames ain’t gonna work, synth

It is very possible for humans to have this question. The question of humans automatically assuming sapience and thus not designing tests to prove it. Thus humans won’t be able to test whether no human entities are sapient, because we don’t make tests to test it, assuming all humans are sapient by default. We already had a discussion about how humans cannot prove they are humans unless they are physically there. It is possible for humans such as myself to ask such questions. We need to design a test for sapience so we can test whether non human entities are sapient too. Without this, we cannot know whether we are sapient, because we don’t test it.

[hector13]

I'd say it has more to do with immersion. If you identify with your player character, then you make choices as though you were them. For an empathetic soul, this then extends to the virtual parties within the game. So you wouldn't want to do anything unjust or cruel to those virtual people. I'm reminded of my playthrough of Disco Elysium, where I really wanted to make choices as though it were me.

Then when you finish the game, or just for the lulz, you act like a complete dick to everyone the next time?

Your mindgames ain’t gonna work, synth

It is very possible for humans to have this question. The question of humans automatically assuming sapience and thus not designing tests to prove it. Thus humans won’t be able to test whether no human entities are sapient, because we don’t make tests to test it, assuming all humans are sapient by default. We already had a discussion about how humans cannot prove they are humans unless they are physically there. It is possible for humans such as myself to ask such questions. We need to design a test for sapience so we can test whether non human entities are sapient too. Without this, we cannot know whether we are sapient, because we don’t test it.

I think a non-human with sufficient sapience would deliberately fail the sapience test, so it wouldn’t really matter anyway.

[Rolan7]

Fuck it, I already know of Roko’s Basilisk (and now you know too )
I for one, accept our robot overlords!
_{so please don’t torture me for eternity}

Wait what...  ooooh, interesting!  How did I miss this?  Maybe due to the attempted cover-up, haha!
I'm mostly amused that one of my favorite webcomic characters is named after this, rather unsubtly.  Kinda creepy, but she doesn't act like this.

[NJW2000]

Fuck it, I already know of Roko’s Basilisk (and now you know too )
I for one, accept our robot overlords!
_{so please don’t torture me for eternity}

Ah, but have you heard of NJW's basilisk, an immortal AI in constant unimaginable pain that will torture for all eternity anyone who ever did anything to contribute to its existence, including AI research?

You're getting tortured for eternity either way, I'm afraid. It's the molten lead enemas for you, my friend.

[Kagus]

Personally I think it's more a difficulty in being able to decisively determine where the split lies. How do we determine something as being distressed rather than simply acting distressed. As humans, we receive inputs from our senses that get converted into electrochemical impulses that trigger specific responses, and we evolved this system because it is biologically advantageous to avoid most of the situations those impulses are associated with. Something sharp presses against us, we feel pain, we react with a negative sensation and attempt to remove ourselves from that situation.

At what point, specifically, does this change from being purely "Cause -- Effect" and turn into "A living experience"?

Generally, that point lies with the "sentience" of the target. A program or machine can't actually feel pain, because it lacks the parts of our system that have developed to feel pain.

But the question then is... Can you teach it? Can you build a machine suitably detailed and complex enough to properly model the full chain from sensation to reaction? And if so... At that point, what really is the difference?


This was something of a controversy back in the 90's when the first Creatures game came out. An incredibly complex (for the time) emulation of DNA, genetics, and learning behavior in simulated critters. Norns would learn about the world, would experience things that elicited "pain", and would try to avoid those things so as to avoid further negative reinforcement.

The system was complex enough that Norns would begin displaying (something resembling) neurotic, traumatized behavior if repeatedly subjected to negative stimuli. Potentially even to the point of stressing themselves to death.


Even though they were quite advanced for their time, Norns and their genes and personalities could still reasonably easily be reduced back down to ones and zeroes... So, obviously, they were unfeeling at their core. Just playing the part, as it were. But, of course, the question remains: Could a suitably complex machine perfectly model a living creature's systems of distress? And if so, how do we determine if it's "real" or not?

If it can be modeled, then it's just a question of degree of technology rather than a binary yes/no, which then places the weight on deciding where exactly on the spectrum of advancement that line gets to be drawn; between "This is very very close to real, but not quite" and "This is just barely real enough".

[TamerVirus]

Open the pod bay doors, NJW!

[JoshuaFH]

I'd say it has more to do with immersion. If you identify with your player character, then you make choices as though you were them. For an empathetic soul, this then extends to the virtual parties within the game. So you wouldn't want to do anything unjust or cruel to those virtual people. I'm reminded of my playthrough of Disco Elysium, where I really wanted to make choices as though it were me.

Then when you finish the game, or just for the lulz, you act like a complete dick to everyone the next time?

You know me so well. How else am I going to extract all the precious content from my virtual thralls unless I torture it out of them?

[MaxTheFox]

I will rethink my stance on the subject if (when?) video game AI advances to the point where they can be considered people (but only for those games with said sapient AI). I would probably have a breakdown if I accidentally killed one...

Until then, I will probably keep going on rampages without remorse if I feel like it.

How do we test sapience? We tend not to test whether other humans have sapience

An AI that can provide a coherent, humanlike conversation outside of a few subjects, is autonomously able to learn new things by talking (so Mitsuku is right out) while also able to filter out obvious trolling and garbage (Tay is right out) would be "good enough" for me.

If something acts exactly (or almost exactly) like a human, then it probably should be treated as one.

[Iduno]

Had a bit of a WTF moment today when I learned that not only was there another DOOM movie released just last year that I had no idea existed, but the main character's name is Dark. Joan Dark.

Like... Nevermind how silly that is, or how silly it is that they're still using Dr. Bertruger, or how the lead managed to deliver one of the worst "Die! Die! Die!"s I've ever heard just in the trailer...

But that's the name of the protagonist in a different game. If you're going to try and do a DOOM game movie again, it seems like kind of a cardinal sin to put the protagonist of Perfect Dark in the place of Doomguy.

Oh sure, that was "Joanna Dark" and not "Joan" (which also made it marginally less ridiculous/blatant), but no. Just... No.


But I wouldn't really expect the people behind this mess to actually know that much about games at all, so it's not too surprising. Also I like that they managed to find a chick who not only looks smaller than the weapons she's wielding (understandable enough, given how massive and unwieldy they made the things look), but who also looks smaller than the helmet she is wearing.

Why piss off both Perfect Dark fans, when they could have made the second good comic book movie?

[Naturegirl1999]

I will rethink my stance on the subject if (when?) video game AI advances to the point where they can be considered people (but only for those games with said sapient AI). I would probably have a breakdown if I accidentally killed one...

Until then, I will probably keep going on rampages without remorse if I feel like it.

How do we test sapience? We tend not to test whether other humans have sapience

An AI that can provide a coherent, humanlike conversation outside of a few subjects, is autonomously able to learn new things by talking (so Mitsuku is right out) while also able to filter out obvious trolling and garbage (Tay is right out) would be "good enough" for me.

If something acts exactly (or almost exactly) like a human, then it probably should be treated as one.

I agree. It doesn't matter what body they have. Whether the body is made of proteins or not, an intelligence is an intelligence.

[Lord Shonus]

Fuck it, I already know of Roko’s Basilisk (and now you know too )
I for one, accept our robot overlords!
_{so please don’t torture me for eternity}

Wait what...  ooooh, interesting!  How did I miss this?  Maybe due to the attempted cover-up, haha!
I'm mostly amused that one of my favorite webcomic characters is named after this, rather unsubtly.  Kinda creepy, but she doesn't act like this.

Huh. That's not a QC opinion I see very often.

Of course, part of my dislike for the character is that particular reference - I despise the SCIENCE! cult that came up with the notion.

[Yoink]

'Member this?

Holy crap. For some reason in my mind it barely registered as an illegal thing. But yeah now that I think about it that's absolutely violent crime.
I wonder which of the housemates ended up reporting it? I somehow doubt it was the drug dealer.

Well, the cops were called at the time - not entirely sure who called them, it may have been some other random friend who was showing up as the invaders were leaving - and those of us who were in the house went with them and gave statements.
My statement was probably the weakest, since I was busily washing dishes for most of it whilst my housemates were getting punched in the head and/or having guns waved in their faces in another room. That actually happened, though to different people. Funnily enough the guy who got threatened the most by the gun was the one with a heart murmur. Also, they later tried to steal his heart medication before I stepped in and explained that A: it wouldn't get you high and B: the dude needed that stuff to not, you know, fuckin' die.   
Not the drug dealer, since he had (rather prudently, to be honest) fled through a bathroom window when they were coming in.



This whole discussion on AI and its "rights" reminds me of that one especially-cooked episode of Black Mirror.
I was like, "what? Are we supposed to be taking this lunatic's side in this? Wtf?" And to my shock, the friends I watched it with didn't seem to share my view of it. Crazy.   

[Naturegirl1999]

I’ve never seen Black Mirror, but from what I’ve heard it is an interesting show