Literally just mainlining marketing material straight into whatever’s left of their rotting brains.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think artificial intelligence is possible and has already been done if we’re talking about cloning animals. The cloned animal has intelligence and is created through entirely artificial means, so why doesn’t this count as artificial intelligence? This means even the phrasing “artificial intelligence” is incomplete because when people say artificial intelligence, they’re not talking about brains artificially grown in vats but extremely advanced non-biological circuitry. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about circuitry artificial intelligence or even non-biological artificial intelligence. It’s not like there has been any major advancement in the field that has alleviated those skepticism. I believe there’s an ideological reason to tunnel vision on circuitry, that solving the problem of artificial intelligence through brains artificially grown in vats would be “cheating” somehow.

    • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s a huge reach to call cloning “AI”. We created a funny way to make a genetically identical copy of an organism that still has to be implanted into a womb. It’s entirely natural and you’re not creating something by copying it. It’s not even remotely close to building a sentient machine from scratch.

      But semantics aside the question is whether a glorified chatbot is actually sentient, which is what the vast majority of people refer to as “AI”.