Starting to think this is going to take a while. AI-based religions might endure as robustly as regular religions. Ie if computational level civilization endures at all, these various strains of bs will last as long as conventional religions. Millennia.
Conversation
They’ll be distinguished by distinct relations with computers and crusade with each other over them. Taboos against certain uses of computing will be like taboos against depicting Muhammad.
2
2
20
Declaring AI atheism right now. No sentience or consciousness will come of any of this.
5
8
39
Trying to think of other technologies that have induced robust and enduring religious landscapes instead of transient superstition. Medicine comes to mind.
10
1
19
No. The tech is great and I’m very bullish on it doing great things. I just think it is a category error to think it induces the sorts of philosophical conundrums people think it does. It will just be its own category of thing. Yet another built environment like buildings. t.co/PdmL8EvqS6
This Tweet is unavailable.
1
3
28
I’m broadly in the “if well-posed at all, notions like consciousness, sentience are properties of reality like space, time, mass etc” camp deriving broadly from Thomas Nagel, Ned Block etc. AIs are mostly irrelevant for investigating these phenomena. That leaves “intelligence”
2
1
14
I’ve shitposted enough about “intelligence” in the last week I’ll set it aside for now. There’s multiple derangements blowing up in parallel right now.
1
1
7
All I want is a robot butler that follows a mediocre implementation of the 3 laws that make it about as safe as a car. Eyes should glow red if it’s considering violating first law. Yellow if second law.
2
2
15
Here’s an actually fun paper for people newly interested in the consciousness/sentience debates. I don’t necessarily agree with how it lays out the territory but it’s a level of discourse I take seriously and find actually interesting nyu.edu/gsas/dept/phil
1
1
12
(I was obsessively into these topics for several years decades ago… like 1998-2002… read a ton and made copious notes which I mostly threw away after getting to conclusions that satisfied me)
1
7
I’m moderately surprised at the popularity of this view. It has solid pedigree (Dennett, some schools of Buddhists) though I’m convinced it is wrong. Still beats “LLM sentience” in rigor and depth though.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
There never was any consciousness anywhere to begin with.
Replying to
Well, it is a null word similar to god. Something defined so variedly and vaguely as to define nothing.
1
1
Replying to
I don’t think lack of good consistent definitions is a good standard to believe something is real
Replying to
The universe we live in requires consciousness to exist. The quantum arrow of time wouldn't work otherwise.
1
Replying to
This argument is somewhat circular and also simply moves ambiguities around without lowering them
1
Replying to
I'll admit to conscious awareness and sentience, but I won't ascribe any magic to it beyond the typical miracle of having any life at all.
2
Replying to
"There was never any [aether|phlogiston|elan vital] anywhere to begin with."
Probably kinda true but it's pointing at something real that we aren't quite getting yet.




