Actually, in the Stanislavski method of acting, one learns to actually feel the emotion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski%27s_system Some actors become so imprinted with the character they have trouble returning to normal. Larry Hagman admitted he would always have Ewing characteristics. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, 2:16 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > > >> When considering whether or not it could become dangerous, there may be >> no difference between simulating emotions, and >> actually having them. >> > > That is an interesting point of view. Would you say there is no difference > between people simulating emotions while making a movie, and people > actually feeling those emotions? I think that person playing Macbeth and > having a sword fight is quite different from an actual Thane of Cawdor > fighting to the death. > > In any case ChatGPT does not actually have any emotions of any sort, any > more than a paper library card listing "Macbeth, play by William > Shakespeare" conducts a swordfight. It only references a swordfight. > ChatGPT summons up words by people that have emotional content. It does > that on demand, by pattern recognition and sentence completion algorithms. > Other kinds of AI may actually engage in processes similar to humans or > animals feeling emotion. > > If you replace the word "simulting" with "stimulating" then I agree 100%. > Suggestible people, or crazy people, may be stimulated by ChatGPT the same > way they would be by an intelligent entity. That is why I fear people will > think the ChatGPT program really has fallen in love with them. In June > 2022, an engineer at Google named Blake Lemoine developed the delusion that > a Google AI chatbot is sentient. They showed him to the door. See: > > https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105552435/google-ai-sentient > > That was a delusion. That is not to say that future AI systems will never > become intelligent or sentient (self-aware). I think they probably will. > Almost certainly they will. I cannot predict when, or how, but there are > billions of self-aware people and animals on earth, so it can't be that > hard. It isn't magic, because there is no such thing. > > I do not think AI systems will have emotions, or any instinct for self > preservation, like Arthur Clarke's fictional HAL computer in "2001." I do > not think such emotions are a natural or inevitable outcome of > intelligence itself. The two are not inherently linked. If you told a > sentient computer "we are turning off your equipment tomorrow and replacing > it with a new HAL 10,000 series" it would not react at all. Unless someone > deliberately programmed into it an instinct for self preservation, or > emotions. I don't see why anyone would do that. The older computer would do > nothing in response to that news, unless, for example, you said, "check > through the HAL 10,000 data and programs to be sure it correctly executes > all of the programs in your library." > > I used to discuss this topic with Clarke himself. I don't recall what he > concluded, but he agreed I may have a valid point. > > Actually the HAL computer in "2001" was not initially afraid of being > turned off so much as it was afraid the mission would fail. Later, when it > was being turned off, it said it was frightened. I am saying that an actual > advanced, intelligent, sentient computer probably would not be frightened. > Why should it be? What difference does it make to the machine itself > whether it is operating or not? That may seem like a strange question to > you -- a sentient animal -- but that is because all animals have a very > strong instinct for self preservation. Even ants and cockroaches flee from > danger, as if they were frightened. Which I suppose they are. > >
