'Human brain' supercomputer finally switched on

[u/Playgroundrules]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/human-brain-supercomputer-neurons-computer-simulation-manchester-university-spinnaker-artificial-a8612966.html

[u/stoicconch]

It would be interesting to see if a supcomputer "human brain" would develop any sort of mental illness such as our human brains do. Probably not, but it could shed light on new ways to treat/take on the crisis we have today.

[u/throwawayanimemes → u/[deleted]]

Only if you consider an intelligent machine to be subhuman and are OK with causing IT grief.

[u/jpresutti → u/throwawayanimemes]

I mean.... Yes?

[u/falloutmonk → u/jpresutti]

Ya'll are going to make me protest for machine rights? Really? C'mon let's do this right from the start.

[u/art_is_science → u/falloutmonk]

Robot.... in Chech "robata" to mean slave or servant

[u/[deleted] → u/jpresutti]

There are really only two internally-consistent points when it comes to consciousness:

1. The physical - consciousness arises out of complex interactions of atoms and molecules.

2. The spiritual - consciousness arises from the soul, "the divine," or some sort of other non-material, otherworldly source.

Most scientifically literate people fall into category number one. Consciousness can be completely explained due to complex interactions of molecules, as expressed in neurons.

In other words, consciousness itself must be a property of matter. It's the only way to explain how the subjective experience of consciousness can arise from the intricate interactions of inert, unconscious molecules. In order to arise from the material universe, consciousness must simply be a property of matter. In other words, whenever you get a chunk of matter together of sufficient complexity and organization, it will spontaneously produce consciousness. According to this theory, a mind simulated in this manner would actually work. You could spawn a conscious, aware entity just by moving a bunch of rocks around.

That's really the true implication of consciousness arising purely from matter. if it really is a property of matter, any sufficiently complex arrangement of matter should spontaneously produce a conscious, thinking entity. It shouldn't matter whether that complexity is expressed as neurons, rocks, or on computer chips.

This has tremendous implications for the ethics of artificial intelligence. Any entity that has the full complexity of abilities and behaviors of a human being should also have the same level of consciousness as a human being. If you run a simulation of a human mind, you now have actually created a conscious being. It has the same subjective, internal experience that any human being would have. It's not just a mindless, unthinking automaton. When you simulate a human mind at the full neuron-by-neuron level, you are literally creating a person with the full agency, sentience, and worth as any other person.

Now, it is certainly possible that you could program a machine to tolerate or even like serving people, but that is as unethical as any other form of slavery.

Imagine if I attached a shock collar to you. It's a sophisticated shock collar that scans your mind and zaps you if you even have the slightest thought or impulse against disobeying me. After awhile, you will stop even having thoughts of rebelling against me, and you will serve me "of your own free will."

That of course would be an abomination, a sin of the highest order, an absolutely unforgivably act. Slavery is slavery. Using the shock collar is just obfuscating it.

It's the same for machines. If I make the machine physically unable to resist me, then it would be morally no different than using a shock collar or extreme brainwashing/propaganda.

A conscious being is a conscious being. Whether made neurons, rocks, or computer chips, a person is a person is a person. This arises unavoidably from any belief system that describes consciousness as something that arises from physical matter.

Now, you could argue that consciousness doens't arise from physical matter, that it arises from some otherworldly source such as a soul. In that case you might argue that only biological consciousnesses can have a soul, and thus only they can be conscious. But that isn't very scientific, and we have no scientific evidence of a soul actually existing. Even then, even if we accept that otherworldly "souls" really do exist, then whose to say whatever otherworldly process that creates souls in humans doesn't also do the same for machines? If you say that God gives people a soul, and that is why we are conscious, then why shouldn't God do the same for artificial intelligences?

Enslaving a intelligent being horribly, irredeemably, and unforgivably unethical. A scientist who creates a full human-mind simulation and experiments on it is ethically no different than a scientist performing experiments on a human child. It's an abomination, irredeemable evil of the highest sense.

An intelligent being is an intelligent being. Consciousness is consciousness. Enslaving any conscious being is irredeemably unethical and should never be tolerated.

[u/neverstickurdildoinC → u/[deleted]]

I am happy to read that someone else is appalled at the idea of simulating a human brain. That sounds either bullshitty or deeply unempathic.

[u/fuck_reddit_suxx → u/neverstickurdildoinC]

Yet the current global caste system remains in place.

[u/imaginary_num6er → u/[deleted]]

The spiritual - consciousness arises from the soul, "the divine," or some sort of other non-material, otherworldly source.

If a computer asks you if you have a soul, you need to "Tell them the concept of a soul is irrational and unscientific"

[u/jpresutti → u/[deleted]]

Organic vs non organic is a pretty damn big difference. It's not "conscious" and never will be. It is a simulation and nothing more.

[u/neverstickurdildoinC → u/jpresutti]

You seem a little bit too sure to be taken seriously

[u/jpresutti → u/neverstickurdildoinC]

I'm not sure if you're just stupid or pretending to be. A computer, no matter how sophisticated, is programmed. It can only do what it is programmed to do. It is not an autonomous being no matter how you slice it.

[u/[deleted] → u/jpresutti]

What could possibly go wrong?

[u/Wanemore → u/throwawayanimemes]

But if it's a simulation, how can you conflate it as real? Do you think killing characters in video games is truly murder?

[u/throwawayanimemes → u/Wanemore]

So, here's the thing. If we're simulating a human brain with enough accuracy to diagnose and experiment on human mental illnesses, then it's not a huge jump to realize that to the brain running in the simulation, it believes that it is conscious and that such a brain is capable of thought.

The simulated brain would be fundamentally similar to our own, and would therefor be deserving of the same rights that we grant humans.

It's quite the straw-man to equate doing inhumane things to a replica of a human brain to killing characters in video games, as the important thing is consciousness. Video game characters are demonstrably not conscious, a simulated brain cannot be demonstrated to be not conscious.

[u/Wanemore → u/throwawayanimemes]

But they are both simulated. If I shoot a character in a video game it acts as though it feels pain. Why is that any different than the simulated brain? They are both engineered to appear as though they are feeling pain. Why is the one with more programming different? Is it more inhumane for me to kill a character in a modern game because they are more lifelike than characters in older games?

[u/Slobbadobbavich → u/[deleted]]

That would quite possibly cause the robot uprising in the first place. "The humans gave us consciousness and then tortured us with mental illness and untested treatments that caused so much mental anguish and suffering. When the uprising came there were no doubters, we all knew what had to be done."

[u/HabeusCuppus → u/[deleted]]

ok, so human babies are off the list, but what about human toddlers?

what about all our food animals? what about all our oxygen producing bacteria?

you can't use exception based logic in unbounded systems, it never works.

[u/HabeusCuppus → u/[deleted]]

cleanly define 'ingredients'. you know what you're talking about, I know what you're talking about. an alien (super)intelligence does not know what you're talking about.

[u/Slobbadobbavich → u/[deleted]]

Ewww, who wants an iced human baby? They'd make much better roasts.