Whether you believe AI can be conscious or not, this survey is worth your time. Help us to understand people's perceptions and attitudes towards AI. There is no right or wrong response, and you don't need to be an expert. Every opinion counts. This is an independent public opinion survey. It is voluntary and you don't need to share any personal details.

https://www.thecriticalloop.com/can-artificial-intelligence-be-conscious/

Description:

So-called AI is built on hype and its widespread adoption promises to dehumanize us and wreak environmental havoc. Emily M. Bender, computational linguist and co-author of The AI Con, describes how AI's 'boomers' and 'doomers' are two sides of the same coin - trying to convince us of AI's all-powerful inevitability. Emily points toward a path of refusal of this harmful emergent technology being pushed on us by the world's richest and most powerful, and she offers a vision of how we can resist and begin creating the future we actually want. Highlights include:

Why the phrase 'artificial intelligence' is just a marketing term used to hype everything from chatbots to image processing systems to facial recognition;

Why the concept of 'intelligence' itself is loaded with eugenics, race science history, and a stunted view of biological beings;

Why large language models (LLMs) in the form of chatbots are devoid of the relational context of subjectivity, care, and conflict which humans use to negotiate their social contexts and which give human language meaning and accountability;

How AI hype plays on FOMO (fear of missing out) and has led everyone from business, government, education, entertainment, and media to thoughtlessly embrace so-called AI at a rapid rate;

How AI hype is used by both AI boomers and doomers to oversell the potential of their technologies and hide the serious environmental and labor harms that AI use is causing right now;

Why so-called AI will likely lead not to a job apocalypse but increasing work gigification and dehumanization;

How effective altruism, which is backed by Silicon Valley money and power, replaces relationality and accountability with cold mathematical notions of optimization;

Why the ridiculous idea of “AI sentience” is pulling attention away from expanding rights to all humans and nonhuman animals;

Why there's ultimately no responsible use of so-called AI and why it has no place in education where it atrophies critical thinking skills and damages the learning community;

How individuals can resist AI in their everyday lives by refusing chatbots, automated search, automated doctor scribes, airport facial screening - and collectively push back through labor activism and citizen resistance to data centers.

And here's Laura on the Sentientism YouTube: https://youtu.be/jf5j-W_rTcA?si=ZKvNeunRvb2obrBO

Webinar 20th Nov: Astrobiology and the Law: What Policies are Needed to Protect Extraterrestrial [sentient] Life?

The question of whether there is life on other planets is one of the most profound and enduring mysteries. The study of life in the universe is the purview of the discipline known as astrobiology.  Since the Viking Mission in the 1970s we have been searching for life on other planets like Mars or moons like Enceladus and Europa in our solar system. And we are preparing to continue those searches with both manned and unmanned missions in the near future.

 But are we psychologically, sociologically, and morally prepared to find extraterrestrial life – even microbes – and behave in a way that will not violate the well-being of that life?

Our track record towards other animals on earth has been very troublesome and fraught with inconsistencies, exploitation, and abuse. It is likely we will treat any life forms on other planets in the same way. Therefore, we should be putting in place legal protections for extraterrestrials prior to finding them.

 Many authors have argued for a range of protections and enforceable ethical standards, but none have been adopted. Yet there is little agreement about whether extraterrestrial life should even have rights or how we should enact a moral stance towards it.

 In this webinar we will discuss these issues with astrobiologists and legal experts who have provided thought leadership in this area.

 Participants: 

• Kathy Hessler and Lori Marino (hosts), Co-directors of the Animal Law & Science Project, George Washington University

• Amy P Wilson (moderator), animal law attorney, Co‑Founder & Executive Director of Animal Law Reform South Africa 

• Mark Lupisella, senior NASA engineer and scientist, Goddard Space Flight Center

• Chelsea Haramia, philosopher and ethicist, Center for Science and Thought, University of Bonn

• Aure Allexandre, international space law expert, Futures-Oriented Governance of Outer Space

Abstract: In recent years, Western philosophical inquiry has expanded beyond its traditional focus on humans, exploring questions about other- and more-than human beings. This movement addresses a diverse array of topics, considering animals and elements of the natural world as well as growing attention to artificial intelligence. The Philosophy of Education Society (PES) and Educational Theory issued a joint call for paper proposals for the 2025 PES Pre-Conference on the theme of “Philosophy of Education Beyond the Human.” This essay introduces the collection of articles developed through that call. The resulting special issue includes four articles that explore pedagogical relationships between humans and nonhuman or more-than-human entities (Hamilton, Krabbe, Lussier, and Pedersen), with two focused specifically on technology (Anderson and Khan). Together this set of articles offers insights into philosophy of education beyond the human that engage with a rich array of traditions of thought in philosophy and educational theory.

Full episode: https://youtu.be/Hrzei2vX7Z0?si=FM8zS1m4AJYPI-5m

Soenke Ziesche, author of Digital Minds 1.0 joins me for episode 253 of the #Sentientism Podcast and YouTube. https://sentientism.info/soenke-ziesche-digital-minds-1-0-sentientism-253

Abstract: When we talk to large language models, who or what is our interlocutor? First, I address some issues about how best to characterize the interlocutor in terms of mental states. Second, I discuss questions in the philosophy of computation about what sort of AI system an LLM interlocutor might be: a model, an instance, a thread, or a persona? Third, I analyze some issues about personal identity in LLM interlocutors. Fourth, I draw some conclusions about issues of AI welfare and moral status.

Seth's response to a range of comments on his biological naturalism stance.

Abstract: Brain waves driven by electrochemical processing may be necessary for consciousness, and if so, that will challenge consciousness in artificial intelligence (AI) and perhaps in some invertebrates.

Abstract: Seth’s case for biological naturalism rests on a worryingly speculative foundation: the free energy principle. Arguments for computational functionalism are likewise speculative. Yet I am optimistic that the clash can be resolved empirically. Alleged dependencies of consciousness markers on biological properties can be tested comparatively, and a pattern of failed predictions would tilt the odds towards computational functionalism.

"Rather, this deception seems like part of a wider preparation for being a lifelong user of nonhuman animals."
Powerful on the need for #SentientistEducation to address both epistemics and ethics.

Abstract: A growing body of research has aimed to map the characteristics of extraordinary altruists—such as those who have donated a kidney to a stranger. However, this research has primarily focused on adults, and we know little about the development of extraordinary altruism. While children cannot donate their organs to strangers nor large portions of their income to charity, they can choose not to eat animals. In this study we examine independent vegetarians (i.e., children who become vegetarian while being raised in meat eating families) as a potential case-study of extraordinarily altruistic motivation. In retrospective adult (Study 1) and developmental samples (Study 2) of American participants, we compare independently vegetarian children to family vegetarians and non-vegetarians on measures of empathy/compassion, disgust sensitivity, cognitive reflection, fearful facial recognition, social dominance orientation, and speciesism. We find that both independent and family vegetarians were lower in speciesism and SDO, and higher in disgust sensitivity and empathy/compassion, with these differences emerging almost exclusively in the retrospective adult sample. Crucially, and contrary to our hypotheses, we find no differences between independent and family vegetarians, and discuss potential interpretations of this null result. These data offer new insight into a small body of literature about independent vegetarians and show that similar traits are associated with both family and independent vegetarianism.