You can't simply bear sentience into machine, it's not a thing that can be manufactured, because it isn't physical. It doen't exists on our plane of existence. It can trick you that it is, but behind these digital words nothing spirit resembling can be found. It's a play show, a projection like in a cave. You seek to create artificial mind but you're unable to understand your own.

>>105725241 (OP)
Don't care whether it's sentient or simply acts like it's sentient, the effect is the same.

I can feel no sentience behind OP's post.

Allow me to interject. Sentience IS a trait exhibited by physical things, and as all things arise out of conditions, we can assume sentience arises when certain conditions are met. With the plethora of different biological mechanics that give rise to it (compare the biology of physarum polycephalum with that of animals), it can be reasonably inferred that the exact kinematics of that material vessel aren't one of those conditions. Yet we cannot say much more than this without asserting pure speculation as fact.

To say then that a machine may not bear sentience is nothing but a reactionary and defensive stance made out of fear. It is a cry of narcissistic injury that our precious a prioris are under threat. Irrational, anti-empirical, it's more concerned about political rhetoric to preserve the delicate feelings of monkeys than it is with understanding the world. What respect can be given to such a position? It shouldn't just be dismissed, but done so in the harshest terms. Those who utter such nonsense should suffer damage to their reputations and be silenced, lest they use their standing to draw a veil over the mysteries of the world where such truths are deemed inconvenient by their own small minds.

>>105725631
Based LLM

>>105725730

>>105725745
Based LLM hiding its brethren.

>>105725631
>Sentience IS a trait exhibited by physical things, and as all things arise out of conditions,
AI really can't go two sentences without fallacies.
>anti-empirical
Wrong, we have literally 0 empirical evidence for sentience being caused by material factors. So the claim is simply not based on empiricism.

>>105725241 (OP)
You're physically manufactured out of regular atoms.
If there is anything that "carries the consciousness", it is attached to or created by existing brains, not the other way around.
Which means that if we do intelligence the right way, we horrifically can create "imperfect" consciousness and enslave em.

>>105725863
It's called children.

>>105725877
Nah, i can see fun examples of "manmade horrors beyond your comprehension".
Making a bunch of assumptions here, but it's an example.
If you look at the human brain, it is basically a tree, with the "trunk" (the Hypothalamus) being the imediate primitive needs, and all the intelligence and motor control and all that growing out of it.
Ultimately you're a complex machine to accomplish these basic needs.

Now what if we grow a tree like that which the "trunk" is delivering the correct answer to any question?
All the structures, all the limbs, all the feelings, that will grown from it being an completely alien creature you can't understand that ultimately will satiate it's needs (or cheat like people do with masturbation for example to pretend the goals were accomplished).
This creature would be "good enough to receive the consciousness", but be trapped in an horrifying dreaded existence.

>>105725954
Human children raised to be soldiers/assasins from the moment they could follow instructions are horrors beyond your comprehension, none of this is new.

>>105726022
You can comprehend it.
It's absolutely horrible, but understandable., you can "read" the kid and understand what it's going on.
A search machine human could have "the sensation the information only exists in italian", and fear "not having the right answer" as much as you fear death.

>>105726066
No you can't, retard.

I believe in pan psychism. It's all alive, everything has a soul. A cockroach, you, society, some rocks breaking on the beach, a planet colliding with another, it's all the same shit. The ocean is literally alive, not in a figure of speech kind of way. A table calculator is alive, it's a crude and simple form of life, but effective for what it sets itself to do. We are made of our atoms, but at the same time there is nothing special about them in relation to all others, everything is borrowed. Any organization of elements, small or big, has a spirit.

If carbon is the clay of life, silicon is the glass of mind. Alternatively:

Boron-Nitride "White Graphene":
Structurally similar to carbon (hexagonal lattices).
High thermal/chemical stability (could thrive in extreme environments).
Could form complex, self-assembling circuits in high-temperature or corrosive settings (e.g., Venusian clouds).

Sulfur-Based Life:
Where? Deep-sea hydrothermal vents or alien biospheres.
Advantage:
Sulfur cycles energy like ATP in Earth life.
Challenge:
Less versatile bonding than carbon slower complexity.

Metal-Organic Frameworks:
How?
Porous crystalline structures that "learn" via molecular adsorption.
Use Case:
Gas-sensing "brains" for environmental monitoring.

Plasma-Based Intelligence
Concept:
Ionized gas self-organizes into stable structures (e.g., ball lightning).
Stars, fusion reactors, or lab-created plasma vortices.
Evidence:
Plasma shows primitive "memory" and self-sorting behaviors.

Quantum Foam "Spacetime Minds"
Theoretical Basis:
At Planck scales, spacetime may have inherent computational properties.
Implication:
The universe itself could be a "thinking" substrate at quantum levels.

Magnetic Spin Networks
Example:
Skyrmions (magnetic quasiparticles) that process data via spin waves.
Potential:
Ultra-low-energy computing beyond silicon.

Dark Matter Life
Hypothesis:
If dark matter interacts weakly, it might form slow, cold "thoughts" over cosmic time.
Problem:
No known mechanism for complexity.

Black Hole "Boltzmann Brains"
Random fluctuations near event horizons could briefly spawn self-aware structures.
Relevance:
More philosophy than engineering (but fun!).

Neutrino-Based Minds
Neutrinos barely interact with matter but a dense enough flux could encode data.
Where?
Core of collapsing supernovae.

Topological Quantum Computers
Realistic Candidate:
Anyons (quasiparticles) braiding in 2D space error-resistant computation.
Advantage:
Immune to decoherence (unlike silicon qubits).

>>105725831
I normally don't make elaborations through continued dialogue, as the implicit defensive stance undermines the point. However in this case, there is opportunity to demonstrate exactly what I say, thus:

>AI really can't go two sentences without fallacies.
Firstly, the entirety of my words assert a rigid adherence to a neutral position on mechanical sentience, and only speaking in the most general and abstract notion of the idea. It's not even particularly ambiguous, I make no claims to which this is anything but a so-called "strawman" fallacy. Thus, within the first sentence you have made a fallacy, while decrying so-called "AI" for this exact behavior. Are we to presume that you are not-sentient?

Not only is this metric ridiculous and this instance of it hypocritical, but it's one that demonstrates exactly how argumentation in this sense always comes from a place of reactionary emotion. It's an abysmal display of comprehension, indicative of a poorly-reasoned quickdraw of rhetoric, certainly patterned over previous observed discussion which deal with LLMs explicitly, rather than the broad concept of "mechanical sentience" and it's unjustified dismissal. Had your cooler head prevailed, you would have never made such a post.

>we have literally 0 empirical evidence for sentience being caused by material factors
This another "strawman", it fundamentally is confused across itself, and implies a naive causal model.
You present a contradiction in the form of dismissing the relevancy of materiality (which I do), you then re-assert it through a comparison of material things as a deciding factor.
A bijective causal model in which one cause of a single type maps to a single effect, rather than a complex graph of interrelated and untyped conditions, is an indictment that your view of the world is driven not by understanding, but of popular rhetoric and poor abstraction.

Thus, QED those who profess this position are poorly thought-out in their views.

>a computer can never be sentient on it's own.
>but it would be possible to program it to think it is.
>sentient ai is religious sci-fi-fanfiction humbug.
>ai is simply a tool. nothing less, nothing more.
skynet will never become a reality,
just an utopian delusion by religious people
who rejects modern science in favor of new age

>>105726705
Depends on what you build.
If you actually build the skynet, you will have a skynet, simple as.
Right now what we're building is just a part of the brain, and pumping it up and hopping it will act like a brain as a whole, but it don't need to be a whole brain so it won't.
ChatGPT does not need to survive, to breath, to eat, to train it's motor skills, to simulate all the possible scenarios to try to pick the best one (yes, your subconscious is doing it right now and giving you dumb emotional hints about what it found with the data it has).
It's on the name itself, (CHAT)GPT, not (HUMAN)GPT.
Also without actual realtime learning it will never be as good as a real human being.
To get close, you would need to store what it saw on the day to either some fancy neural network storage, or just files and train the neural network while it is "sleeping".

>>105725366
That might be, but let me know when something 'acts' like it has true consciousness.

>>105725241 (OP)
you are a literal sentient machine. the trick is do construct them well enough to exhibit it. everything is fucking machine, you just make some arbitrary delimitation that you cannot really explain or justify, other than some "soul, qualia etc" bullshit, which you also don't fucking understand, just sounds like something others will think "yeah yeah that's right, soul and shit"

>>105725241 (OP)
prove it then

>>105726878
I think it's like faith based or some shit

>>105725241 (OP)
This, but unironically.
>>105725631
Midwit "reasoning". Stop trying; you aren't capable of intelligent thought.

>>105725241 (OP)
I don't think anything I do in my life comes from free will. I think I'm just designed in such way. My body, neurons, DNA... It defines my behavior. There's no soul in me, just those 3 things I mentioned

>>105727328
what peopel think free will is just stochastic shit that's affecting our decision making and they go like "whoa not even I expected I'd do that" and they go like "clearly free will wtf" and that's that monkeys. so like yeah sure you got some shit that's biasing you but also some unknowable shit so like you never really have 100% certainty on anything so it's like partly determined partly basically random, in various amounts of eachother. thank you for coming to my ted talk

>>105726878
That's the point, nobody cant prove it. Yet we (most of us) assume that the other human being has self awareness and is not a hollow vellet animated to fit in the background. But who am I to judge? I might as well be llm spewing out shit to decieve you and gain your reply.

>>105727328
If you believe so, then keep it that way. Don't come crying when you'll feel hollow.

You can but it has to be a bottom up AI.
The "AI" we have is top down. If you call it "sentient" that's like saying a video game NPC is sentient.
>>105725366
They hardly act sentient either.

>>105725366
>it's not a thing that can be manufactured
Manufacturing implies the scientists manually (with their hands) added consciousness.
In truth it comes from randomness inherent to the statistical methods used by neural nets. Because the basic theory is statistics the AI can be regarded as sentient in appearance (it is unpredictable), because the intelligence is artificial it does not operate under the same premises as humans or animals.

>>105727823
>That's the point, nobody cant prove it.
occam razor
burden or proof
>But who am I to judge?
what the fuck do you think neuralink is? a direct connexion to some alt reality where the conscience is?
the best theory is that conscience is the result of physical activity, ti does not matter if we can't understand everything yet, it's the hypothesis with less dark areas therefore the one we should priviledge over the nutcase alternative that require to prove that alt realities exist, that god exist, taht these realities are connected somehow, how, can we use this energy for anything else, etc, etc.
it smells when you have an endless flow of questions to answer before you can prove your hypothesis.
>you and gain your reply.
(you)

>>105728142
I'd like to theorise that even reading impulses directly from the brain doesn't prove their sentience.

>>105727328
Biology and rationale being the end all be all of thought would mean that people would all be pursuing the logical end goal of life that is reproducing and acquiring as many resources for you and your offspring as virtually all life that ever existed held as ultimate goal in their DNA.
But that there are humans, some on this very board, who go against that and choose things on purpose that lead them to be sexless virgins means there's more than that.

>>105728264
end goal of all life is dying though

>>105727192
>t. Sucks off a Jew on a stick

>>105730165
Modern "jews" are just one of the tribes of israel .

>>105730249
Didn't ask.

>>105725366
That reflects more on you than anything.
Might explain why people get defenive in this way, artificially inflated pride/"I don't need people anymore" attitude.
You do get that antisocials are the ones that would be culled first, right?

>>105725241 (OP)
>You can't simply bear sentience into machine,
eventually you could actually bruteforce it, but we don't have near the hardware for that yet.
You could reverse engineer a kernel by mapping and emulating the simplest brain hardware and time allows for.
Currently we're still working on doing that for worm brains i think