I hadn't heard of Elektro before. It is funny how quick we are to attribute humanity and intelligence to other things. I found a clip of Elektro, and I can see how it inspired many depictions of...
I hadn't heard of Elektro before. It is funny how quick we are to attribute humanity and intelligence to other things. I found a clip of Elektro, and I can see how it inspired many depictions of intelligent robots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuyTRbj8QSA
I read the original article (https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae013/7644104) and I feel it is important to note something from the methodology and results. Consciousness was attributed...
I read the original article (https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae013/7644104) and I feel it is important to note something from the methodology and results. Consciousness was attributed on a sliding scale (0 to 100), based on a definition from a previous study:
As we all know, each of us as conscious human beings have an ‘inner life.’ We are aware of things going on around us and inside our minds. In other words, there is something it is like to be each of us at any given moment: the sum total of what we are sensing, thinking, feeling, etc. We are experiencers.
On the other hand, things like thermostats, burglar alarms, and bread machines do not have an inner life: there is not anything it is like to be these objects, despite the fact that they can monitor conditions around them and make appropriate things happen at appropriate times. They are not experiencers.
Which means that 1 could essentially be a thermostat, and 100 a human (as per examples provided in the study). According to the study's own conclusion:
Overall, our results reveal that a substantial proportion (67%) of people attribute some possibility of phenomenal consciousness to ChatGPT [those who considered ChatGPT to be an experiencer, even if slightly so]
Which does not necessarily equate emotional depth or understanding, but rather the narrow definition of experiencer mentioned above, and even so, to a very limited degree.
The median "experiencer" score was 25, which is still very much under the value attributed to humans (100). However, a couple of respondents gave ChatGPT an experiencer score of 100.
I hadn't heard of Elektro before. It is funny how quick we are to attribute humanity and intelligence to other things. I found a clip of Elektro, and I can see how it inspired many depictions of intelligent robots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuyTRbj8QSA
I read the original article (https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2024/1/niae013/7644104) and I feel it is important to note something from the methodology and results. Consciousness was attributed on a sliding scale (0 to 100), based on a definition from a previous study:
Which means that 1 could essentially be a thermostat, and 100 a human (as per examples provided in the study). According to the study's own conclusion:
Which does not necessarily equate emotional depth or understanding, but rather the narrow definition of experiencer mentioned above, and even so, to a very limited degree.
The median "experiencer" score was 25, which is still very much under the value attributed to humans (100). However, a couple of respondents gave ChatGPT an experiencer score of 100.