Question

It is not long that some will suppose AI has become alive but we must question, what is the difference between appearing sentient and able to act out of one's own will and able to make personal subjective statements such as, 'I Believe!', and being sentient and able to make such personal subjective statements even without the call of dialogue necessary to fundamentally support them as we much find amongst ordinary pilgrims. It cannot be a fallacy to suggest we are not sentient if we are incapable of belief unless we can support our own thesis. This is a very tough question with no clear criteria for determining an answer. The classic answer, theTuring Test, in my view fails, because humans beings are not the best at making this judgment. Just as we easily watch a movie (which is really a series of still frames) and see movement, it is challenging to see complex, simulated behavior, and not conclude that there is consciousness or something close behind it. An artist might tell you it is the creative process used to generate content. This begs the question of how to determine a method used to construct art when all you are given is the art. Another common criteria involves consciousness: the argument being that only sentient beings are conscious of what they do. There are many classic books on this topic (see Susan Blackmore'sConsciousness: A Very Short Introductionfor a nice, authoritative overview). One that I read recently and found very interesting and persuasive wasGalileo's Errorby Philip Goff. In the book, he makes the case forPanpsychism. I've heard good things from friends about Michael Graziano'sRethinking Consciousness: A Scientific Theory of Subjective Experience. If anyone can come up with a clear, largely-accepted, operational way to determine the difference between a sentient intelligence and non-sentient artificial intelligence, it would represent, in my mind, a major breakthrough in both philosophy and computer science. This is a good question by all standards. Here's whatI believeis a rather disturbing dilemma:Once AI passes theTuring test... eitherAI is sentientorHumans are not sentient. a)Sentience in AI versus simulated behavior.

Challenges with the Turing Test.

Understanding consciousness in sentient beings.

Perspectives on consciousness: Panpsychism and scientific theories.

Answer 1

The question addresses the challenging philosophical issue of discerning true sentience in AI and considers the ethical implications of AI that could possess consciousness or display human-like understanding.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question revolves around the distinction between artificial intelligence (AI) that appears sentient and true sentient beings capable of subjective experiences such as beliefs. The classic approach for evaluating this, the Turing Test, is criticized as inadequate to make such a determination.

Additionally, perspectives like Panpsychism and scientific theories attempt to address the profound questions around consciousness that arise with the development of AI. The ethical considerations of potentially sentient AI are immense, ranging from rights to the implications of 'turning off' such a being. Furthermore, the debate touches upon the philosophical arguments against the existence of a non-physical mind, proposing that humans may not be fundamentally different from complex computational devices.