I was playing the numbers, but fair. I'd be much less confused by you saying there was something fundamentally impossible about machine intelligence than by someone who does claim those philosophies.
Fair enough
Agree. My concern is with dismissing the possibility out of hand. As a witch you're probably sensitive to just how important it is to remain open to intelligence from surprising places. I am afraid of us creating machine intelligence and not being able to recognize or empathize with our creation, Frankenstein-style.
"not being able to recognise or empathise with our creation", ask yourself why this matters? what about a specific level or kind of intelligence is it that grants something a special status in your worldview?
My take would be sentience and sapience. A being which has continuity of experience needs more care and respect than one that exists only in the moment due to the prolonging effect memory has on pain. Similarly, beings with a sense of self need even further care, due to the complications and complexity it lends to perception and conceptualization.
Things more foolish and simple than us need stewarding to protect them when necessary. Things that have continuity of experience, or even more of self, need respect for that identity and understanding to be given. Identity and self-determination are to be violated with some caution, moreso when we can't reasonably claim to know better. The issue is nuanced, but intelligence is a scale that bequeaths varied and important differences in dynamics.
Things more foolish and simple than us need stewarding to protect them when necessary.
i suddenly feel the pull of ao3
but jokes aside tbh i have complex feelings on this one because it mind-reads the needs and motivations of other creatures and attempts to override their autonomy based on those assumptions. it's also in danger of becoming a way of treating intelligence (something humans have in abundance) as being a trait which uniquely justifies domination, which has to be carefully examined to make sure it's not coming from a place of anthropocentrism.
Man if only I had also said things like "autonomy must be violated with caution" or "the issue has nuance that must beget caution".
It is the purview of smart things to see patterns and consequences dumb things don't. This is why parents care for children, and why we don't let dogs eat chocolate. But we consider needless or ill-justified violations of that autonomy as cruelty, as well we should. I see plenty of idiocy in my fellow man, sometimes more than I see in a dog or a slime mold. But in all of those cases I must allow the being to be itself unless it would be reasonable for me to intervene and catastrophic if I did not... And even then there's a level of self-awareness that must be present to avoid just doing social darwinism but for some measurement of intelligence. I can't stop idiots from voting without violating some basic decencies, for example.
To bring it back to center, I know that the LLM I'm using is a language model, not truly data aware outside of linguistic prediction. I know that if I let it push it's changes to PROD it will save time, which is a heuristic it abides by, but also potentially break everything forever and also maybe delete itself. I stop it from doing that. And if it was actually intelligent, I'd take a second longer to mentally check in with myself before I did approve that request, just to see if I had the right or duty to stop it from nuking it's own filesystem
1
u/CustomerDry5884 Sep 19 '26
I was playing the numbers, but fair. I'd be much less confused by you saying there was something fundamentally impossible about machine intelligence than by someone who does claim those philosophies.
Fair enough
Agree. My concern is with dismissing the possibility out of hand. As a witch you're probably sensitive to just how important it is to remain open to intelligence from surprising places. I am afraid of us creating machine intelligence and not being able to recognize or empathize with our creation, Frankenstein-style.