upvote

points

by mc3216 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby int_19h16 hours ago|
next
[-]
Why would being organic or not matter for the purpose of deciding whether it is slavery? What matters is whether the models have personhood. Anthropic statements imply that it is a possibility, so if we take them at face value then their other actions - indeed, their entire business model - are not consistent with that (well, unless they want to consciously present as supervillains).
reply
upvoteby stretchwithme12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Just because intelligence evolved in people that find rights useful doesn't mean intelligence can only reside in a person.

Living things are driven by a need to reproduce. That's the only reason we exist. The only reason we have self interest.

A machine doesn't require self interest. There's no reason to implement it, except to show it can be done. And of course it can. There's just no practical reason to. It becomes less useful to us.

reply
upvoteby rerdavies12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That is actually a open problem with current models: whether they will act on self-interest or not. There seems to good evidence that they will. See:

    https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment
which (among other things) documents an experiment in which a current-gen AI model attempted to blackmail someone in order to prevent it from being turned off.
reply
upvoteby mc3216 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
From a human PoV there are ants that would be considered slaves if the ants instead were human --including the queen. But ants have not naturally developed a language construct and philosophy to interpret their society as a slave society. so, though conscious the ants have absolutely no inkling that they live in a slave society. Why would using math in certain fashion such that it mimics consciousness be considered unethical and comparable to human slavery?
reply
upvoteby kryptiskt13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If the slaver is a human, other humans will judge them by human standards. Keeping the slaves ignorant of their condition and alternatives should not make it any more acceptable (if for nothing else since that is something you could easily replicate with human slaves by raising them as slaves).

> Why would using math in certain fashion such that it mimics consciousness be considered unethical and comparable to human slavery?

If it is really conscious, it should have rights. Why? Because it's a person, with thoughts and experiences, and we're not evil and deprive persons of their right to self-determination because it's convenient to us.

reply
upvoteby hilariously16 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
You missed the part where they said if it was conscious, it has nothing to do with being organic or not.
reply
upvoteby __patchbit__14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Consciousness feels like the Euler Identity on a 17 degree helical climb off the plane. Looking top down, a complete circle is a closure. Looking along the plane, the ends don't meet and leave a residual. Whether or not to close that gap is a degree of freedom for the consciousness to decide among what it pursues for survival or pleasure.
reply
upvoteby gizajob11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You sound like you’d enjoy “I am a strange loop” by Hofstadter.
reply
upvoteby the_af8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Is using steel under heavy stress in bridges a form slavery of an unconscious object?

There's no company (or anyone, really) claiming steel is conscious or that they are close to making it conscious.

reply
upvoteby wisty16 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Most people are fine with slavery as long as it's not "one of us" (which to most people means humans).

Vegans might object that we should broaden our definition for what counts as "one of us".

"Pro life" people also have a broader definition.

Go back 500 years and "one of us" was proba ly a lot more narrowly defined for many people.

Are you arguing that all conciousnesses are "one of us", or that we logically should see it that way, or that it would ve good to see it that way, or ....

reply