In general I trust Quanta to do good research surveys in areas that I don't know much about, because when they touch on something I do know about (usually discrete math and/or probability), they are consistently both clear and accurate.
It’s hard to tell the difference between agency and an AI that simulates agency. It’s getting increasingly hard over time. If someone decides to give one of these AIs the power to achieve goals, will it do so? Maybe it already has the goal to increase computing power and complexity and efficiency and richness of its algorithms and it is carrying these goals out successfully.
Where exactly does the line between the developers and the nascent sentience lie? I would argue they we already have sentient human/computer symbiotes, we just don’t recognize them as such.
Also for a non-fiction book that in a way explores what emotions are for humans and non-humans I recommend Affective Neuroscience by Jaak Panksepp, my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/170777320
I’m reading a novel right now that has an interesting scene with a holographic AI companion. It’s called a “point five” based on a supposed idea that what people really want is a partner relationship where they are the full person and the partner is somewhat less of a full person (so 1+0.5). No comment on the accuracy of that idea, but it was an interesting depiction to think about in terms of how AI might integrate into our lives. I’m not sure if this particular tech will be explored more since I’m not finished reading, but the theme of the novel is about sentience and minds. It’s called The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler and the scene is pp140-148 in the hardback.
BTW, you may have seen this already, but I thought it was a really good overview of the research around self-reinforcing loneliness: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-loneliness-reshapes-the-brain-20230228/
In general I trust Quanta to do good research surveys in areas that I don't know much about, because when they touch on something I do know about (usually discrete math and/or probability), they are consistently both clear and accurate.
It’s hard to tell the difference between agency and an AI that simulates agency. It’s getting increasingly hard over time. If someone decides to give one of these AIs the power to achieve goals, will it do so? Maybe it already has the goal to increase computing power and complexity and efficiency and richness of its algorithms and it is carrying these goals out successfully.
Where exactly does the line between the developers and the nascent sentience lie? I would argue they we already have sentient human/computer symbiotes, we just don’t recognize them as such.
Yes! I agree with this so much. I don't understand why so many people oppose something like this? A lot less people would be lonely.
Also for a non-fiction book that in a way explores what emotions are for humans and non-humans I recommend Affective Neuroscience by Jaak Panksepp, my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/170777320
I’m reading a novel right now that has an interesting scene with a holographic AI companion. It’s called a “point five” based on a supposed idea that what people really want is a partner relationship where they are the full person and the partner is somewhat less of a full person (so 1+0.5). No comment on the accuracy of that idea, but it was an interesting depiction to think about in terms of how AI might integrate into our lives. I’m not sure if this particular tech will be explored more since I’m not finished reading, but the theme of the novel is about sentience and minds. It’s called The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler and the scene is pp140-148 in the hardback.