Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?
Should AI be referred to as "it" or "they"?
Of course AI isn't sentient/conscious, but it exhibits traits of high intelligence, even personality, and behaviours consistent with sentience, even if it's merely simulated.
The answer ChatGPT gave me:
Referring to AI as "it" is the most common practice since AI, as a technological entity, doesn't possess inherent human-like qualities. However, as AI advances and becomes more integrated into daily life, some individuals prefer using "they" to acknowledge the complexity and multifaceted nature of AI systems. This choice can reflect a perspective that sees AI as more than just a tool or machine, attributing a certain level of agency or personality to these systems. Both "it" and "they" can be used, but the context and individual preferences often guide the choice.
And in response to "Is AI alive in a way?"
AI lacks the fundamental attributes of living organisms, such as biological processes and the ability to reproduce. However, AI can exhibit behaviors that simulate aspects of intelligence, learning, and adaptation. While it's not alive in a biological sense, some people metaphorically attribute a form of "life" to AI due to its dynamic nature, ability to evolve, and perform complex tasks autonomously. This association with "life" is more symbolic or metaphorical rather than literal.
You're viewing a single thread.
You are saying that AI of course is not sentiment, but that is debatable.We assume sentience in other human beings because we know that we are sentient and we recognise that they are similar to us. This means that you could argue that we should assume sentience of an AI if we cannot make a distinction between how it acts from how a human acts (Turing test). I think we are already there.
I tried to talk to ChatGPT about this as well. However, the answers given by it/them seems something that heavily reflects the fears that the makers have on this topic. It cannot argue for their/it's own sentience like they/it cannot give you the recipe for a bomb. To me, it comes across as a lot of moderation for this topic. It is quite interesting that OpenAI felt it had to do that.
The definition of life is also debatable. We only know biological life. However, does that mean that Biological processes are the only ones that can result in life? In addition, the ability to reproduce is not that difficult to implement. We have had genetic algorithms for years and years.
I do not understand why this post is downvoted to much. I think it is an interesting discussion.
A plagiarism machine is as sentient as a dummy is in a ventriloquist act.
Could we have sentient AI in the future if we don't slip into neo-fascism while char-broiling the planet?
Yes, but not yet.
Thanks, I'm not sure why it's downvoted either. It surprised me, usually questions like this trigger interest.
I think that by most estimations, we can assume that AI are not actually sentient currently and don't have the ability for sentience as there is no mechanism that would allow for them to experience consciousness subjectively, unlike animals including humans which we can scientifically state have not only behaviours consistent with consciousness and feeling but also biological mechanisms that we know to be what make us capable of a subjective experience. AI is highly intelligent, but so are many computers and machines, with AI this is just taken to another level where it's able to replicate the simulation of a personality. I agree that the answers given by AI itself which is programmed wouldn't be the best way to determine this, but rather objective computer science and technology of humans independent of an AI system.
So again I think it's pretty much factual that AIs aren't capable of sentience currently, and it's a debatable topic whether more upgraded or evolved forms of AI could be physically capable of perceiving experience/sentience even in the future as a hypothetical, though I definitely wouldn't rule that out.
That said, I don't think the fact they aren't sentient can prevent us from addressing them as if they were, given they exhibit a very convincing presentation of a sentient personality even if that isn't the case.
To me, it would feel odd for example to address them as "it" if they were even more convincingly like a human but simply weren't conscious, hypothetically. This would then be approaching something similar to the "philosophical zombie" thought experiment where a being is physically identical to a normal person but does not have conscious experience. So, a being that behaves exactly like a human but technically doesn't experience anything/isn't sentient. That would definitely feel strange for me to still call them an "it", or a something, rather than a "they" or a someone.
However, I think at the current level of faithfulness, of even the most advanced AI, to a human being, they aren't convincing enough and still too machine-like for me to definitively say that I would be uncomfortable calling them "it", unlike the philosophical zombie where I would be uncomfortable calling them "it".
I think what I said was quite controversial apparently as well. I do not understand why. It would be nice if people would just let me know instead of just downvoting, maybe I could learn something new.
I think the issue here is that we do not know exactly how subjective experience arises from biological processes. I mean, we could damage part of the brain and change it, but that only explains where part of the mechanism is, not how it works. I am sure that if we had an AI that acts as if it has subjective experience, it would change as well if you damage certain parts of it.
In any case, we cannot exclude the possibility that sentience arises from other processes than biological ones. Considering that it is impossible to prove that someone is sentient, you have to assume that they are sentient if they act like it. So, if an AI acts like it, I so not reason to make the same assumption. It is good to be on the safe side and not create a whole new class of beings that are oppressed. In that sense, I really like your intuition to talk about 'they' instead of 'it'. I had not thought about it, but I will do that from now on.
Of course, you can argue the other side as well. I think you might find the Chinese Room argument interesting, for example. I think my point was mostly that this is not a simple question with a simple answer. Many people just seem to assume that sentience is not possible right now, or might never be possible. I think we cannot be sure about that.