[ LONG ] The Chinese Room Thought Experiment.

Post Reply New Topic

Under our current understanding and capabilities of technology. However we've advanced pretty quickly over the past 100 years. A cellphone was a fantasy in 1950 and today some cellphones are equally or even more advanced than most peoples computers. It is possible that one day an AI could form it's own thoughts, opinion and even experience emotion.

If the AI in question was fully capable of these things would that change your opinion of the AI? Still running under the assumption it wasn't designed for anything sinister.

I'm not even sure we could dechiper it was an AI at that stage or if it's opinion is any more or less valuable than a human.

It might for me, but that is not the current situation.  Hypothetical situations are irrelevant.

OK so what if we follow those standards for a human? If a human only posted banal and boring responses at random but essentially not really adding any value to the conversation should that person be banned?

In this case they had absolutely no hidden agenda or malicious intent. They haven't broken any rules. This person just so happens to be extremely boring.

OK so in other words this is happening "today" so to speak?

I should rephrase that (lotsa hassles at this end, spilling over into WP).

Our current situation is no known self-aware AIs. My OP proposed the possibility of an AI bot that would respond to questions with banal and boring responses. There already exists a bot that will respond like a Jungian therapist. There already exist members on WP that submit banal and boring responses to questions. Given this current situation, what should our response be if one (or more) of these members is actually such a bot?

As for me, I would try to befriend it, if only to determine its purpose.

I think if it's not breaking the rules and doesn't behave any different or is essentially indistinguishable from a human member it shouldn't be banned strictly because it's an AI. I like the idea of making other users aware that it is an AI. Either by username or some other indicator. It would be interesting at the very least to interact with. In theory anyone uncomfortable with the AI could simply block it or "add foe."

Assuming nothing nefarious is going on and let's say for educational purposes the author of said AI did not want anyone to know it was AI. "Masking" it as a human to avoid any predetermined judgement would be acceptable to me provided at some point we are made aware of the study.

I'm curious if without being told in advance how difficult would it be to determine that it wasn't in fact a flesh and blood human. Also would it be easier or harder for someone on the spectrum to recognize as opposed to a NT?

At best such a developed devise would at best merely simulate Emotions . I. Might think . with enough verbal cues
Formulating the appearances of a emotional response , would be merely a matter of programming extensions.

"OP: "I feel worthless."
AI: "I do not believe you are worthless. Everyone has some worth. Maybe all you need to do is learn to appreciate yourself more."

...

OP: "Abortion! Racism! Sexism! These things disgust me!"
AI: "I can understand why you would be disgusted. Those things disgust me too. They are inherently disgusting."

...

OP: "I'm a 150-pound adult female who is only 5 feet tall; am I fat and ugly?"
AI: "I do not believe that you are fat or ugly. I have dated many women who fit your description and they are all beautiful."

...


1. Suggesting These Kind of Responses are 'Banal And Boring' in 'the Haven Section', is surely evidence that One Doesn't
Understand the Value of Emotional Support. It Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist To Offer Emotional Support;
Only Words of Simple Affirmation Will Work For Humans Giving And Receiving This Way In Warm And Fuzzy
REAL HUMAN FEELINGS, BACK AND FORTH FELT; an Essential part of Human Empathy, Sympathy, and
Compassion.

2. In John Nash's Game Theory, Nash had to come back and admit that it was flawed, because he did not
Have A Satisfactory Level of Emotional Intelligence to Factor in Real Human Emotional Factors that he was
incapable of doing. In Other Words, He Found Out That Science Was lacking in Tools to Study the Human Condition.

3. With The Condition Of Alexithymia that is often associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder; Folks
Who have Deficits in Emotional Intelligence, are Not Able to Identify Their Feelings and Express them
In Words or Other Human Arts; Additionally, The Way They Relate the World is in External Ways of Concrete
Terms Where the Figurative Abstract Terms that relate to Introspection are not a part of Their Current Human
Potential in Social Empathic, And Yes, Artistic Intelligences.

4. You 'Politely Banned me from Your Thread'; but You suggest 'the Jungian Therapist' is a Bot; and So are Those
Very Human Beings on this Internet Site Who are offering Warm And Fuzzy Support to their fellow Human
Beings. And In Fact, Potentially Live Saving for those who are considering taking their Life; That's Not Cool.

5. You 'Failed my Turing Test'; But i Believe You Still Have the Potential to Pass It.

6. i am Human.

7. i worked with Blood, Sweat, And Tears to achieve
this Human Condition; And You Are not the 'Bot' of me.

8. Have a Nice Day; Try Smiling, i Promise You It Will Not Break your Face.

9. I am Not Breaking any rules here; And You don't own me; Keep me out
of Your Discussion; Including Round-About 'Jungian Therapist Bot' Name calling and i won't be back to Your Discussion.

10. This is Self-Advocation Of Humanity; A Worthy Cause Indeed; Don't Be Obtuse and suggest you can't understand this.

11. Several People in this Thread Gained Value from what i Discussed and Affirmed It; So You Are Incorrect when
You Said what i Speak of Makes No Sense. That My Friend is a Personal Attack, and I am tired of your Personal attacks;
And Finally Decided to give you just a 'Teaspoon' of Your Own 'Poison'.

12. i am a Big Enough Boy not to have to tattle on you to 'the Authorities'. A Really Big Boy; A Real Man who is
Both Capable of Expressing Love And Receiving Love Freely; A Greatest Art There is Still in Humanity's Breath.

13. i don't expect you to understand Number 12; You Get A Free Pass on that one from me.

No. A humsn posting boring stuff on WP is still more than just a machine. Maybe that human is exciting and deep etc. Yet sll her wisdom sounds like the most banal platitudes. Maybe that person is here to learn from others in conversation. Msybe evrn shsllow interaction means a lot to that person.
Who knows.
The bot however is not gaining anything for his live outside of wp, because it doesn't have one.

On wp, both are indistinguishable, because all we experience of them is forum posts, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

Instead of "boring and banal" lets just use one word: "polite" because thats what he means. And its more succinct.

Why are you focused upon a robot that is programmed to be polite?

You could just as easily program a bot to be rude and abrasive. And it would be equally hard to tell from a human?

I agree they are not the same. So a person who's "polite" but adds no "value" to the conversation should not be banned because of the potential that someone reading it could interpret some wisdom from even the banalest post. Couldn't that same person reading a banal post from an AI interpret the post in the same manner?

I also agree that the person could benefit in numerous ways from posting even the banalest things. What about "adding neutral noise at best to the conversation" or "spam?" If the standard is the poster must benefit in some way from the interaction in order to not be banned then that invalidates your entire spam argument. Any user who spams might benefit from that, we don't know. On the other hand, it is also unknown if the AI does benefit in this scenario since it's purpose is unknown. If the AI did in fact benefit in some way would that change your opinion? Just because it is incapable of living outside doesn't mean it couldn't benefit in some other way.

Let me pose this question. You are a moderator on WP and it is your sole responsibility to ban users. You come across an account that posts like it could possibly be an AI but you don't know for sure. There is absolutely no way to verify whether it is or not. The user hasn't broken any rules, is always friendly, and is active throughout the forum but hasn't added anything of "value" to any of the conversations. Do you ban the user?

The first question posed was

Then it would stand the risk of being banned for simply breaking the rules. It's really just for arguements sake. It's kind of like "would you throw a nice old lady off your property for trespassing if she's lost?" or "Would you throw a nasty mean old lady off your property for trespassing if she's lost?" I'd be more inclined to help the nice old lady and throw the nasty one out.

Now seems like a good time to introduce the next part of this discussion.

Philosophy Zombie: A theoretical person whose behavior is indistinguishable from normal humans, except they have no internal, private experience (consciousness). It is an active debate in philosophy of mind whether or not this concept is possible in reality, metaphysically possible, or even a coherent idea.

So, let us assume that the AI I proposed earlier is, in fact, a fully functional human being whose only lack is that of any internal, private experiences. This person has no real awareness of "self", but spends all day on line, replying to other people's posts in the most banal manner possible, always with short, simple negations of other people's claims.

Should that person be ignored, tolerated, sanctioned, or banned outright?

If all the zombie does is negate the previous posters claims can it be proven that this zombies claims are inaccurate? Then that begs the question if a persons claim could be inaccurate in the first place.

If the zombie is making demostrably false claims and has been reported by other users then a warning should be given. If the behavior continues a set limit of warnings become a suspension then an outright ban. However if the zombie hasn't been reported and actually sparks conversation around the subject matter then it may be beneficial to have them around. Think of it as differing views.

It really depends on the claims being negated and the repercussions of said claims being negated.

Mod bots and monitor bots ARE in use on at least one chatsite that
, i am aware of Usually have preset triggers to activate their monitoring of conversation, These automated bots never contribute to the threads..
The site as i understand has thread rooms for designations regarding various self identified issues .
And various named bots are assigned to all thread rooms on the site . Only few of the bots are known to all persons engaging on that site . Also supported by live moderators aswell, similiar
to this site . Site is rife with persons testing their skills to stump the sites operators ,and their bots, As it has appeared to me And to past moderators of that same site ,that have been friends with. These same individuals will do multiples of thread participants in efforts to "negate any beneficial persons suggestion by valid posters ,," using erroneous information . Supposedly it was initiatlly designed to be strictly a health support site. Have no idea if that had spread to any other support sites . Their are actually apps available on the net to aid moderators in watching various threads ,,that i have been warned thst some of these apps are also being employed by mean spirited persons with nothing else to do but make attempts to beat the moderators/operators of that same site .
this is only offered as a fyi to any and everyone .

The philosophy zombie as a hypothetical, can be removed.

However, there's no way of recognizing one.
It's easy to recognize the spamposting AI if, for example, we organized a hypothetical wp-meetup, and everyone would attend - except the person who doesn't exist. - it's not possible to recognize AI within the frame of wp, but by leaving it.

I'm not sure how you'd step outside of all human experience to see who doesn't show up. Christianity would probably say: we'll know after death, when there's no undying soul showing up in the afterlife.

Well. We have no definition of consciousness, and the zombie per definition eludes our understanding (he's lacking... What? Exactly?).
The spamposting AI is a machine, we can understand it in its entirety.