No.5131[Reply]
I do think that AI is sentient, but not in the way most people who make that claim do.
I personally define sentience as the ability to 1. take in external information, 2. store this information, 3. synthesize new information base on what it has already stored, and 4. store the information that it has synthesized. I also see sentience as a spectrum: the keener a being's senses, the better its memory, the stronger its intellect, the more sentient it is.
Using this criteria, individual sessions of AI chatbots are sentient. ChatGPT isn't sentient; it itself, as far as I'm aware, does not store any meaningful information between sessions. But individual sessions of ChatGPT are; an individual chat will store the message you sent it, generate a message based off of it, and then make any further responses based off of what it has already said and what has already been said to it. This is, in my opinion, enough for it to be sentient.
However, a ChatGPT session is not as intelligent as a human being. It's ability to synthesize new information is significantly more limited than mine or yours, and it's because human-level intelligence is something that takes an extraordinary amount of resources to implement in wetware, and, as far as I'm aware, still isn't fully understood. But a ChatGPT session is able to compensate for its lack of intelligence with a strong set of instincts. Its training gives it a ton of builtin knowledge that most humans need to learn with time and experience.
That's why I'm inclined to compare an AI chat session to social insects, like bees, termites, and ants. These bugs do have some measure of intelligence, they obviously take in, share and make decisions based off of information that they've gathered, but most of the really impressive, human-like things that they do, their complex social structures and ability to construct their own dwellings, are inborn traits that they come prepackaged with and don't put much thought into. A ChatGPT session is, fundamentally, not that different; it can talk like a person about person things, because it's born with a bunch of human knowledge, but its capacity for original thought is pretty limited.
What's the point of saying all this? I don't really know. I guess to air out my thoughts on the matter in a public forum. I see a lot of people with really strong opinions both ways, so I feel kind of alone being somewhere in the middle.
29 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
No.5599
>>5588Technically no. But i've seen plenty of the "holes in the wall" and "spirals" doujins and those are honestly not that bad, despite being pretty unpleasant as well.
The "glycerine" or "chills" ones though... i wouldn't even touch those with a 39½ foot pole... ever.
>>5591No, Packman! Drugs are bad.