Connectionists: Sentient AI Survey Results

[Stephen Deiss]

Hi Jeff,

Survey questions do not get much more complicated than this, and the social
scientists and pollsters would spank us for using open-ended terminology
like 'consciousness' to get an accurate opinion sample.

So let's start with a definition of consciousness that goes beyond the
Nagel "There is something it is like."  It never has been very
informative.  It was only useful to suppress arguments about what 'IT' is,
and it helped to get philosophers off their fear of talking about
consciousness.  From an epistemological standpoint, we have some kind of
sensation of what we are conscious of even if it is only the itch in our
head we call a thought.  We interpret these sensations by inference to
their meaning.  The meaning might be the next thoughts (or subthreshold
possible thoughts as happens with a feeling of understanding) or a belief
of what is beyond the sensation such as the chair 'out there' beyond my
visual or tactile sensations.  The meaning is our interpretation of the
sensation, a set of inferences beyond it.  Furthermore, this interpretation
lasts long enough to register in our working memory.  Otherwise, it passes
by without notice like the scenes along the road while driving and talking.

So my definition is that consciousness is a *process* of interpreting
sensations for their meaning and holding that meaning in working memory for
some minimal time. Key terms are sensation, meaning, and memory.

Many think consciousness requires self-awareness or reflexiveness.  I don't
because people sometimes 'lose themselves' enraptured in the experienced
moment.  Music, lovemaking, extreme sports, psychedelic trips, and other
things that can induce a fugue state are examples.  But our average
consciousness is self-aware or has self-knowledge.  We usually know we are
having an experience when we are having it.

So for question Q1, a preliminary hurdle might be that the AI system or
robot have sensations or feelings.  That seems to imply robot-like
embodiment, and that of a certain kind that can result in qualitative
feelings to be interpreted (dare I say *qualia*?).  We tend to think of AI
these days as being software running on a computer.  Neuroscientists think
of consciousness as wide-spread coupled activity in cortical areas
(Dennett, Baars, Dehaene, Llinas, Ribary, Singer, Tononi & Koch...).  This
suggests to some multiple realizability might work if we can just get the
mechanism right.

To me, it suggests that our mechanistic worldview with assumed or implied
governing laws (governing from a platonic realm or from on-high) is
overlooking the intrinsic nature of the things that participate in events -
the real stuff.  Nature from the bottom up can be thought of as more
organic - feeling its way along based on internal constraints.  Call it
panpsychism, panexperientialism, or ... depending on desired flavor.  But
the idea is that everything that happens in nature involves sensing, and
the resulting event or action involved self-reference to the state of the
system that would react as internally constrained.

>From this perspective, Q1 is a definite yes, but for the AI to be like us,
it needs to have feelings, not just an algorithm parroting what people say
when they have feelings.  Without compassion and feelings to guide, a
software bug could become a deadly monster.

For Q2: I think we should but it should be done with ethical concerns and
studied regulation up front.  Right now the cat is out of the bag and out
of control with every white hat and black hat hacker having near full
access to the tools to do tremendous good and harm.  This has to be reigned
in fast.  I was one of those who signed the FLI petition early on.  If for
no other reason, this has to be done because when full AGI takes off
capitalism, socialism, etc will have to be rethought as to how to support a
society where there's not that much labor left for laborers to do.  Who
will pay the taxes to keep up social security, medicare, public health,
agriculture, infrastructure maintenance, and so on done by robots with
AGI.  If 100 million Americans are laid off indefinitely, I think there
will be a few pissed-off people marching on Washington making the last
fiasco there look pretty tame.

For Q3: Not unless it can provably attain a level of consciousness with
feelings to match humans.  Who decides that?  I do not know.  But I hope it
is not the most gullible among us who mistake stochastic parroting for the
real thing.  We are all easily fooled into projecting.  I eat things every
day as a vegetarian panpsychist that I think have or had some level of
awareness.  I have no problem turning off a computer or hitting reset no
matter what algorithm is running on it.  But if the AI can convince me that
it will feel the pain of death, and it has a track record of doing good
things for all life, I would have to think twice even if it looked like a
machine.  According to the biochemists, I'm a machine - just a special type
with feelings.  If someone claims these feelings are illusions, ask them
how they treat their friends or kids.

Thanks for the chance to weigh in.
Steve Deiss
UCSD I.N.C. (retired, but not done)


On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:13 AM Jeffrey L Krichmar <jkrichma at uci.edu> wrote:

> Dear Connectionists,
>
> I am teaching an undergraduate course on “AI in Culture and Media”. Most
> students are in our Cognitive Sciences and Psychology programs. Last week
> we had a discussion and debate on AI, Consciousness, and Machine Ethics.
> After the debate, around 70 students filled out a survey responding to
> these questions.
>
> Q1: Do you think it is possible to build conscious or sentient AI?     65%
> answered yes.
> Q2: Do you think we should build conscious or sentient AI?            22%
> answered yes
> Q3: Do you think AI should have rights?
>       54% answered yes
>
> I thought many of you would find this interesting.  And my students would
> like to hear your views on the topic.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeff Krichmar
> Department of Cognitive Sciences
> 2328 Social & Behavioral Sciences Gateway
> University of California, Irvine
> Irvine, CA 92697-5100
> jkrichma at uci.edu
> http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jkrichma
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.socsci.uci.edu/*jkrichma__;fg!!Mih3wA!HDh_VR15vKKZHpLfS4NQNCBOnPXi4taXtClO-FkrXpNYzCK6sf3PtTd6GMYP_ZhCZaZ83AkV$>
>
> https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/716394/neurorobotics-by-tiffany-j-hwu-and-jeffrey-l-krichmar/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/716394/neurorobotics-by-tiffany-j-hwu-and-jeffrey-l-krichmar/__;!!Mih3wA!HDh_VR15vKKZHpLfS4NQNCBOnPXi4taXtClO-FkrXpNYzCK6sf3PtTd6GMYP_ZhCZT4hUUls$>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20230604/96885bfc/attachment.html>