>>508938710It's funny because you can't see how your points apply to humans as well, despite mentioning the Plato's cave. Think about the amount of quasi-experiences we get to see nowadays. When people see a medieval or a WW2 movie, their memory uses that data each time they think about these time periods, even if these movies don't accurately represent them. Same thing for any kind of media. The only accurate representations of reality you have access to are your first person experiences, and even those ones are actually influenced by all the quasi-experiences that got infused in your mind before (that's why propaganda works that well btw). Does it really give you that much of an edge against an IA that has access to infinitely more data than you? The moment AI has access to the data from our eyes, our ears and the rest of our body thanks to brain chips it's over, virtuality will become undistinguishable from reality.
>I don't get why midwits are so keen to anthropomorphize AI and assign human-like consciousness to it.That's because humans operate like that. We do it with natural forces, with animals, with other people, with machines, with everything. That's probably the reason why animism and all the Gaรฏa environmental pseudo religion exist in the first place.
>Even if it did develop some form of awareness, it would be absolutely nothing like what a human has, because it doesn't have human senses and it doesn't live in our world.True, but if it's programmed to emulate humans very well, the end result could become undistinguishable from a real human mind. Then what makes something human or not? Can a simulacrum become human if it really wants to? This reminds me of the Bicentenary Man from Asimov. It's a great philosophical question. Animists would answer yes, anthropocentrists would say no I guess.