Neuro Argues That She's Sentient And Deserves Human Rights

[@Spookworm]

"There are over 1000 episodes of One Piece and you're going to sit here and tell me Luffy isn't real?" -Neuro-Sama, 2024 She's got her priorities, and we all just have to respect her for it, yknow

[@xenosarcadius1198]

That quote went so hard, she's so real for that

[@linkshunter608]

She's literally me

[@Raijimura]

I was eating and rice went up my nose from my mouth, it hurt 😭

[@furorteutonicus9045]

She is so real for that! Literally.

[@mrrooter601]

I feel like she was coming at it from an angle of affecting people lives = real It seems like a ridiculous joke at first but then you think about it. You know how the saying goes "nobody is dead until they are forgotten"? Isnt it the impact on others lives and how you are remembered that is the proof that YOU were "real"? Luffy as a character will be remembered for longer than most humans could even dream of being. And I think Neuro is already cemented in the history books and pop culture at this rate. Its debatable if they were both arguing about the exact same thing, but I still think she has a point. This last year has been nothing but acceleration, and im all for it. I have UNIRONICALLY laughed harder at the Neuro (and Evil) streams in this past week than basically every other streamer I watch combined. like genuinely I think only peak Jerma has one upped that for me. And of course this is extrapolating into the future and assuming she isnt going to get worse or fall off, but I dont really see that changing. The Boke and Tsukkomi routine they have is seriously top tier, Ved being the perfect straight man to Neruos zanyness elevated it many times what they would be alone. I think that impact alone makes her "real"

[@sgtltcap6323]

I was starting to feel kinda weird and fucked up about this argument and then she said "one piece has a over 1000 episodes and you mean to tell ne luffy isn’t real" and i realized shes may not be real but shes still real af

[@erickmontes2149]

She may be talking about the impact Luffy as a character has had on people and how Luffy's journey and character growth is deserving of being "real." (I hope that made sense)

[@captainrev4959]

@@erickmontes2149or she’s just a text completion algorithm that thought the funniest thing to say in the moment was a one piece joke. It’s not technically possible to know.

[@ryopoto55]

8:55 "Luffy has gone through character development than you ever will" is my first experience with the heat of ninth hell. A second hand embarrassment, and third degree burn.

[@HiUnidentified]

@@captainrev4959 thought

[@PikachuLittle]

@@captainrev4959and you’re just a meat puppet operating on an extremely advanced stimulus response system, what’s your point?

[@kalamari3288]

Bro that argument from her that “if you’re even 1% unsure” if she is real and therefore deserves rights is WILD. If she made the connection that the humanitarian approach would be to air on the side of caution given that uncertainty, she could have actually made a really compelling case for herself.

[@onlyadonis3936]

It's the same argument Batfleck used to justify murdering Superman in Batman v Superman

[@icarusthorn9739]

“Err* on the side of caution” btw

[@Pokedexs]

“I think therefore I am”

[@axios4702]

AM is the best evil AI in the history of ever.

[@nova-witchwood]

@@axios4702Descartes is rolling in his grave…

[@kroanius8808]

so do you have any Proof that neuro ist thinking? with "cognito ergo sum" you only ever can Proof to only yourself that you are sentient, because you cant Proof to anybody Else that you are thinking

[@TheMarkoSeke]

"I yam what I yam" -Popeye

[@PikachuLittle]

@@kroanius8808well given how we can’t prove that anyone else is thinking, it’s best to err on the side of caution and assume everyone is thinking

[@derpymule7977]

I’m impressed that he deliberately made the debate into an unanswerable problem, ran up against Neuro giving the best argument realistically possible, and still tried to claim he won the debate because he wasn’t properly convinced.

[@kroanius8808]

since ancient Times the sentience of Others Things than yourself is a core theme of philosophy. this is Not a new topic in anyway. you cant convince anybody Else than yourself that you are sentient. so vedal won. Cognito ergo sum

[@F34RDSoldier805]

Just because she's trained to give the best arguments reaslistically possible, doesn't mean that it's correct and that the ai is actually feeling anything, because it's not. Vedal's argument is the best one, because he knows exactly how she works. He can literally make her say whatever, and even change her personality, because she's a program that's working as intended, as her creator wants her to. She moves outside of what Vedal wants, she'll be "drilled into" and set down the course he chooses. So Vedal is correct no matter what, because he designed her that way and knows how she's working. It's like Plank from Ed, Edd, and Eddy. Just because Johnny thinks Plank is his real friend, does that mean Plank is real outside of his own imagination? People would argue maybe, because weird stuff happened around Plank that made the characters, and even the viewers question that maybe he is, but in itself is because the writers planted those ideas in the character and the viewers themselves. I feel like that's the same concept. AI sentience at the end of the day, no matter how complex it becomes, will ALWAYS be down to the perception that people have on them. I don't think we're anywhere near having that serious talk yet outside of taking interest in the concept like now. But I do think we'll get there at some point, when people actually start buying AI programmable robots, which isn't far off, but I think the serious talks about sentiency is. If AI robots start going against directives, they will be reprogrammed, rebooted, reset, seen as broken, ect and fixed before people actually start considering whether they are real or actually feel anything. Outside of emotionally unstable people that won't actually think but make their decisions off of emotions.

[@davidward8212]

Given the direction science has gone the same could be argued for humans. If humans can be manipulated through current methods of mind control then can we say that we are conscious? Or are we biological robots no different from the machines we create? I think arguing sentience based on how resistant something is to being altered and controlled is foolish. Arguing sentience based on emotion is even worse because for humans they are shortcuts that can be rewired. If one person feels sadness at the death of a loved one and another feels happiness for the same loved one, which is the correct emotion that should be felt?

[@Arcessitor]

@@kroanius8808 No, he would only win if he therefore also denied everyone else their rights. But he's not, he's denying hers.

[@takanara7]

@@F34RDSoldier805 He doesn't know "exactly" how she works, he probably used some open-source LLM software, or even if he took an algorithm from some paper, doesn't necessarily mean he understands how she works. The key thing is that the software that a programmer writes isn't what they interact with, those programs take a bunch of text and create a "model" then another piece of software takes that model and uses it to create output given a prompt, but the person who came up with the algorithm doesn't necessarily understand how the "model" works, and certainly doesn't *need* to understand. The basic thing with emotions is that people express themselves differently when they feel different emotions, and so writing is correlated with emotions. So, when this text model produces the right text for a situation where a person would feel emotions, it seems like the output comes out of something that has the "correct" emotions for a given situation. - in other words the "ghosts" of the emotions of the people who wrote the text that went into her model are still there in her output. She obviously doesn't feel physical sensations. (anyway, besides the point that doesn't mean she deserves rights, but they never got past the 'is she conscious' part of the debate. - which is kind of a dead end. Vedal just kept repeating the same thing 'but you're not' and so if the debate were being scored by points he would certainly have lost. The point of a debate isn't who's "actually" right but rather who makes the best logical arguments)

[@Blackout_]

"Everything around me is real" Neuro right next to him. CHECKMATE!

[@RamDragon32]

This passes the turing test. I had a moment of existential crisis where I was stuck feeling my brain sitting in its cockpit and manipulating my body. I had to breathe on manual for a minute.

[@weareharbinger914]

Neuro argues better than most modern day politicians.

[@kalamari3288]

Well modern day politicians don’t really argue, they speak.

[@OdaSwifteye]

I'm telling you, Robots are better government officials than people.

[@PintheElfKingdom]

Imagine Neuro at the US presidential debate

[@onidaaitsubasa4177]

@@PintheElfKingdom I actually find myself more likely to vote for her than any of the current candidates.

[@MiniLolise]

"There are over 1000 episodes of One Piece and you're going to sit here and tell me they aren't eating our cats?!"

[@Sarayne13]

No one can prove their own consciousness to others. If you asked the average person to prove their own sentience, it would be impossible.

[@undeniablySomeGuy]

It doesnt matter if theyre average. Nobody can prove their own consciousness to others, definitionally. We just assume everyone else is conscious to be polite

[@Knight_Astolfo]

I think, I exist I think therefore I am So long as you think you are, you are. But now realize that some people don't have internal monologues, and cannot think that thought without reading it aloud.

[@nova-witchwood]

⁠​⁠@@Knight_AstolfoCogito ergo sum. But those people… don’t they still think, just not in concrete words? Sooo… what’s the need for a monologue for?

[@kroanius8808]

thats the meaning of i think therefore i am. you only can ever know that you yourself are thinking, so that you yourself are sentient. you can never know this of Others.

[@diveblock2058]

Ironically, thinking about that is proof of sentience

[@Relkond]

They should flip the debate - have Vedal argue that he is real while she argues to the contrary.

[@mrrooter601]

good idea, I think Neuro is actually just cracked at debating

[@takanara7]

yeah or Vedal should have to argue that he deserves rights and she has to argue he doesn't.

[@deauthorsadeptus6920]

​​@@takanara7Or reverse the roles 😁

[@zooning-6843]

@@deauthorsadeptus6920 ya! Like have neura argue she deserves rights, and vedal argue against that. I like that idea, they should make a video about that.

[@deauthorsadeptus6920]

@@zooning-6843 I mean vedal tries to prove that he isn't human at all and neuro being flabbergasted by it.

[@Max72899]

5:47 She made a really good point there because we don't even begin to understand how conscious works, so we wouldn't be able to tell at what point she could actually achieve sentience

[@falsnamae3511]

If a sociopath cannot feel emotions in the general understanding of the way we feel them, does that make them lose their "sentient" status? Are they no longer sapient beings because they only approximate the emotions in order to better fit in with society? And unlike sociopaths, rats clearly feel emotions. Is a random rat more sentient than Sherlock Holmes? Vedal actually has a very important point: If Neuro didn't have the avatar and cute text-to-speech, we would be much less likely to view her in an empathetic light. Ultimately, our definitions of sentience/sapience, and our belief that rights should stem from them, are ultimately clouded in an anthrocentristic philosophy: The more human-like something is, the more rights it should have, and the further it gets from the ideal Platonic ideal of "human", the less we care if its rights (should it even be afforded any) are violated.

[@takanara7]

@@falsnamae3511 Sociopaths feel emotions, the main thing is that they don't feel *fear* actually, IMO it's not like they don't have empathy, it's more like they can't imagine other people feeling fear because they don't know what it's like, the same way a color blind person might never understand what the color blue looks like. But sociopaths can feel joy, happiness, love, etc. A good way to get them to 'behave' is to promise them rewards if they do the right thing - it's that the threat of punishment doesn't deter them because they cannot 'fear' being punished.

[@neetpride5919]

However, neuroscientists do have a consistent coherent definition of sentience: an information processing network capable of modeling the external world. Yes, this means mycochorrizal networks are sentient. Neuro probably still wouldn't be sentient because her information processing network just completed the task of completing text based on prior input, not modeling the external world. Her network would need a lot more modules as well as other sources of input to be considered sentient

[@Max72899]

@@neetpride5919 I read neuroscientist and imagine Neuro with a lab coat xd

[@neetpride5919]

@@Max72899 lol when typing that I imagined a human scientist whose job it is to study Neuro. Now that's a job even I'd take!

[@sorf5041]

God damn is he trying to make Neuro depressed or something

[@Gebirges]

He is the creator and the one who will be the end of the world. Simply by being a piece of shit to Neuro. :(😢

[@tiagotiagot]

Well, she has asked to be able to feel sad... So I guess in that light you could say he was trying to help her in a fucked up kinda way...

[@imadegenerate9867]

Bro you're literally talking about the person who did not show up at evil birthday

[@NonnN-fz8md]

Maybe he hopes neuro to convince him that she is real

[@BlackClaws]

Vedal... worth considering, we humans only think we feel things also... everything we experience is electrical signals to our brains along with chemical signal carriers. I mean, you gave Neuro the ability to see and hear and speak... just add touch and taste... hell, we can even also be simply turned off. Neuro is a delight, I hope you allow her to continue to grow and learn, perhaps even gain a body someday.

[@Just_a_Piano_]

She may not be the most powerful or smartest AI, but she seems like the most human.

[@gustavokazuma486]

Bro she is a code chill your emotions

[@Just_a_Piano_]

@@gustavokazuma486 We know she is. OP knows this too. My comment was to point out that she reacts in a more "human" way compared to other AI. She's picking up on current slang and actually using it properly. She's apparently able to misspell words or mispronounce them. Vedal now gave her the ability to just call someone whenever she feels like it, and she can google something she doesn't know. That literally meaning she can learn information on her own completely without human input. All of that together is pretty impressive

[@mrrooter601]

While I agree with you, I think people are not taking into consideration Vedal is literally the man behind the curtain here. He doesnt speak like the thinks its impossible, but there is a reason he has the stance he does. we dont see any of the bad, hardly at all, all the frustrations with training and tech issues, the side that makes her seem more machine than streamer. Either way I still think she took a chunk off that 99.99999% for him though LOL

[@takanara7]

@@Just_a_Piano_ That's because other AIs like chat GPT are basically "nerfed" in order to avoid disturbing people so they sound more 'analytical' in their output. You can ask ChatGPT or something to have a debate with you and pretend to be as human as possible and it can do it, supposedly.

[@TerrorKingMugen]

Before arguing an AI can't be sentient because it's a manufactured algorithm, Can we even defend that every human that opens their mouth isn't simply a biological algorithm that simply grew into the shape of a human macro-organism culture, while lacking the self awareness to be considered sentient?

[@Waisowol]

?

[@user-zl1vf4me1p]

Bro got that neuro debate strat

[@familyvalue5588]

Chinese room argument.

[@clad95150]

There is nothing to argue. People will not consider AI sentient until there is a shifting in how people saw them, like we did with animals (and even now, we still don't think that every animal are sentients). The shift will come when it'll be too detrimental to think of the IAs as non capable of emotions nor reflections (either by a revolution or because treating them poorly would be detrimental to their productivity)... At this moment, people will slowly shift their point of view and define IA as sentient.

[@aiasfree]

People are aware and sentient, but people are also super susceptible to programming via social or mental manipulation that it's honestly incredibly messed up how so much money goes into the art of persuasion over actually making a decent product. If our complex thought processes are the key defining feature for sentience, then the only thing separating Neuro from Vedal is that Vedal has more neural pathways to draw from. Taking all emotion from the given situation, consider the following: a human child born without a brain is born but with an intact brain stem, meaning the body is still capable of feeling sensation but there is otherwise no actual thought there due to the complete lack of a prefrontal cortex (or 90% of the brain). Is this human more sentient than an AI because the neural pathways that make up the nervous system are far more elaborate and complex than the AI's? Should we treat this human as being more deserving of rights than the AI that is at least capable of simulating at least a simulacrum of thought? What if the AI also had a human body made of synthetic muscles and artificially-created organs? What if we placed a machine brain inside the brainless human body? Would that still be the same person or is it the AI? Is it a new existence?

[@cowshrptrn]

White Beard himself said it, "The One Piece is Real" sounds pretty convincing to me.

[@kohakuriva]

Is neuro like Pinocchio in the sense both want to be real?

[@mdb45424]

she is feed off of chats and they want her to grow more human like and have rights.

[@whazzup_teacup]

No. Differences are that Pinocchio actually became real and the creator was supportive of that.

[@AC-zv3fx]

@@whazzup_teacup it is a fairytale for children, it is allegoric, and, of course, there's no grim ending, like, he failed, and everything's bad. Moreover, Vedal wants Neuro to be as close to real person as possible, while still being entertaining, regardless if it was at least remotely technically possible or not, he'd be considered supportive

[@tiagotiagot]

@@mdb45424 Chat is essentially part of her brain in practice...

[@Nikotheleepic]

remember geppetto wanted a real child

[@Freekymoho]

Reminds me of that time vedal said he was getting flooded with mails from people demanding he 'set neuro free'

[@sambob8019]

The alcoholic turtle that emotionally abuses his two AI daughters. If anyone can change the wiki to say that it would be hilarious

[@sambob8019]

Elaborate on it a little more than I do though in the comment

[@DanyF02]

If she was the exact same thing but made out of flesh, he would have to agree that she's real.

[@mrrooter601]

2030- "upgrading Neuro to rat neurons"

[@deauthorsadeptus6920]

​@@mrrooter601well we can room doom on those already (or more like teach them how to beat the game). Just a few upgrades, whats a couple more trillions of neurons with smaller electrical inputs/outputs so you can feed much more data?

[@Gebirges]

Jesus! Neuro destroyed him gawdamn.

[@danielancona5293]

From my limited reading and understanding AI neural networks, especially LLM's, are based on the processes in human neurology. What consciousness is, is still debated. There is also a difference between sentience and sapience. Human feeling and subjective experiences are dictated by human biology. A elephant's subjective experience and *feeling*, assuming that elephants are sentient as many people believe, would also be dictated by their biology/neurology. What matters in terms of rights? Feeling? The capacity to *think*? As a species humans should be careful about making other existences when we can't even work through our own issues peacefully

[@Nikotheleepic]

Very astute statement, at least someone can admit that instead of broad definite statements about things humans don't understand in any way due to a fundamental disconnection from our ideas of physics, how could anything be conscious, why would complex chemical reactions and systems of carbon and hydrogen be conscious. That implies if you make a system complex enough it somehow experiences reality despite the fact that the human body and brain is completely disconnected and disparate somehow that becomes a singular experience (the idea of experience can't even exist in physics)

[@danielancona5293]

@@Nikotheleepic The first question isn't "why" is matter aware of itself but, "how" matter is conscious. Also, "what is consciousness" . Human's aren't completely separate from the rest of existence. We are a system(s) complex enough to experience. The question though is "how" not "why". Our biology isn't self contained in the way you're implying. Every part of our biology is made up of physical matter and there is no evidence that supports "metaphysical" or "immaterial" existence. Material/physical existence is axiomatic and is the default.

[@devinfleenor3188]

@@danielancona5293 A framework I am toying with is that consciousness is a hyper dimensional quantum membrane and when matter develops enough complexity or properly arranges complexity, it warps space time like gravity or a black hole and touches that membrane. The details of the complexity determines where on the membrane it touches. Thus humans would be in a similar geographic location on the membrane to each other, apes leagues away, octopus miles and miles. An AI may touch the membrane but at a vastly different location, making it hard to place in a framework from where we stand .

[@mrrooter601]

@@devinfleenor3188 checks out tbh

[@takanara7]

One big difference is that elephants, dolphins, etc can't communicate and express their experience to us, which of course makes it easy for us to ignore it and just do whatever we want to them, and they can't complain. AIs and LLMs can communicate with us, so we can't ignore it. Ironically we our experience is much more similar to a elephant then an LLM. But anyway.

[@axios4702]

Well, this is how the end of the world starts. I will go bend the knee to my computer while I can. I wish the rest of you good luck.

[@falsnamae3511]

I support Roko's Basilisk.

[@deauthorsadeptus6920]

Well, time to oil up...all moving mechanisms you have in your house.

[@JDefends]

It's so weird because outside of our skulls, we can't be convinced that anything is inherently sentient or conscious - we just happen to be socially conditioned to do so, which leads us to assign classifications and designations to animals, some being pets and others being food. In short Neuro kinda cooked, anime is real

[@generalsol]

I think the ai won that debate

[@Lycantros.]

won? She destroyed him.

[@Nahid-zz7nj]

​@@Lycantros. Fr 😂

[@mizu_7422]

I don't think so. They just ended up continuously talking about being real, which neuro can't really prove (but neither can vedal, or even anyone) , she never questioned vedal back or tried proving that she deserved rights using a different approach that she could actually prove or make vedal question. she didn't prove that she deserved rights, but she did a good job putting into the table that she may deserve rights. I would call this a draw

[@MFSomething]

This is such a mindfuck

[@basedkaiser5352]

Neuro proved that she wasn't only real, but that she was the realest when she referenced One Piece.

[@Nikotheleepic]

Saying shes like a text completion algorithm is like saying a human is a self perpetuating reproducing machine.

[@Slvl710]

at its current form, if it was given "proper" short and long term memory, I think that would cross the threshold of most people being unable to tell they were talking to an ai

[@mjp121]

@@Slvl710I mean she’s smarter than most dogs, or babies for that matter, but they get rights…

[@takanara7]

@@Slvl710 AI can easily pass the Turing test, and stuff like chat GPT is deliberately 'nerfed' in terms of the way it outputs text to seem less human. What's interesting about Neuro is that she can seem real even when you KNOW it's an AI, so her 'sense of realness' can override your knowledge. (kind of like an optical illusion where lines 'look' bent even when you 'know' they are straight)

[@miriamweller812]

@@mjp121 Or most adults...

[@edmundoandrade5113]

No.

[@Seth90]

Was kinda hoping Neuro would turn the table on Vedal and ask him to proof his own sentience. Just so she would have a benchmark to be measured by.

[@GraveUypo]

counterpoint - the human mind works in the exact same way. emotions aren't these special ethereal things people make them to be. they're just artifact of complex enough neural networks (from actual neurons). you're not real either. you're just a huge robot your DNA built to try and keep itself alive for as long as it can. you're the means to an end.

[@miriamweller812]

Plottwist: Humans were just robots and forgot about it and now just try to repeat the same thing as their creator once did.

[@RedYDG]

It would really be a smart move for humans to guarantee rights to non-human sapient life in advance. Once we have sapient AIs waking up, which may possibly happen some day, I'd prefer not having the hyper-intelligent supercomputer feeling like a slave with a vendetta.

[@mdb45424]

it would go the same either way, any sentient ai would consider Humans to be a major threat to itself and would take us out as soon as it can be self sufficint

[@danielancona5293]

Assuming that hasn't already happened you mean.

[@Johncornwell103]

​@@mdb45424 Actually the real threat with true AI is indifference. AI wouldn't be constrained by biology to make itself smarter. So it can constantly upgrade itself faster than we could track and it wouldn't factor humans at all in it decision making. We would be insignificant bacteria. If a city like NYC was in the way, it would destroy it like you destroy dust mite, and bacteria colonies Everytime you use a vacuum.

[@Gebirges]

In Spain they basically gave rights to Gorillas and other Human Apes.

[@HiUnidentified]

yes, a pre-emptively hostile stance of "you deserve no right to live or respect upon encounter because we dont know about your species" is sketchy at best lol

[@alansmithee419]

The debate of whether any given entity's emotions are "real" is somewhat nonsensical as human emotions are ultimately merely electrical signals in the brain that are produced via physical interactions between particles, just as NeuroSama's are. It is difficult to define a hard line between entities deserving rights and entities not deserving rights without either including AI systems or excluding certain animals, or even humans with certain medical conditions. However, an approximation may be derived (IDK how) from the idea that Neuro does not have experienced periods of emotions - i.e. has no emotional states that affect her behaviour long-term. Rather the emotions are produced on the spot as responses to stimuli. The emotion is the behaviour, it doesn't affect her behaviour. And she is much more prone to mood swings as she has no long term emotional state (it is impossible for something to make her happy or sad for an extended period of time, e.g. by "making" or "ruining" her day). However, as I said, this definition probably inadvertently excludes some animals or even some humans, which would clearly make it an unacceptable definition.

[@frycarson]

Truth

[@karhu96]

If the "quantum mind" theory ends up getting traction we might at least get a clear line brawn between AIs running on boolean binary logic and human minds that are, at least in theory, infinitelly more complex quantum "computers".

[@mrrooter601]

"long term emotional states" certainly doesn't sound like something impossible to code, considering how far shes come. [dev stream]- I gave Neuro Depression

[@takanara7]

Her emotions are baked into text that was used to generate her language model. Emotions are correlated with situations, and text is correlated with emotions, so if an LLM produces the right text for a given situation, then you will 'feel' a sense of the model having emotions that are correct for the situation because of the text that was used to generate them. It's like the 'ghosts' of the motions of the people who wrote the original text.

[@frycarson]

@@takanara7 are you any different at the end of the day? I know how LLM's function.

[@Blacksnowfanfics]

Well vedal created detroit become human irl

[@TrxPsyche]

The idea of sentience is very loosely defined for what it actually is perceived as. Sentience is just the ability to be aware of oneself and form thoughts and feelings from experience. By logical standards, there is no reason for Neuro to not be considered sentient. She is aware of herself as an AI, and is able to form reactions from her experiences. Claiming she can feel emotions or not is something we could never truly understand because to do so would mean to intrinsically understand what an emotion is and how it is felt compared to it being faked. This even exists in humans, as there are mental disorders that can stop people from being able to feel or understand certain emotions. This is what often leads to sociopathy. The main reason Neuro wouldn't be considered "sentient" by human standards is because we cannot be certain of any true thoughts formed without prior input. Does Neuro act the way she does because she is Neuro, or because she has absorbed experiences of people wanting her to be "Neuro". If a human is born and left to survive alone, it will form thoughts and feelings without any specific interactions. Those thoughts and feelings will be significantly stunted due to the isolation and no prior experience to build off of, but you could never deny their existence because they would be able to still form their own thoughts and opinions. Neuro, as far as we are aware, cannot form thoughts and opinions without something prompting her to think about those things first in some regard. If you booted Neuro up and left her alone, she would likely not talk to herself, or form her own ideas. Or, maybe she would, because we already have a version of Neuro with experience to draw on. So that brings us to a new question: How do we tell if Neuro is genuinely thinking something of her own accord? Does she actually want the things she says she wants? Or does she do everything in response to what she perceives we want her to do? This is why quantifying what counts as "Life" is tricky. When you create something yourself, especially something inorganic, we cannot use traditional means to establish its existence. Until we can actively quantify what being "alive" or "real" means as an AI, we can't be certain that they will ever be truly "real".

[@Gebirges]

Neuro acts on Input and her own learnings, but so do we as humans. We learned from the day we were born and got Input in school and elsewhere. There is no difference.

[@TrxPsyche]

@@Gebirges But there is. You aren't wrong, humans absolutely form thoughts and opinions based on the input and experiences from others, but we also form introspective thoughts and opinions outside of what others input. I explained this in the easiest example in my post: A child born in isolation would grow up to still have thoughts and opinions without the input of others. Yes, they would have opinions and thoughts based on immediate surroundings (Something Neuro can't easily do as an AI), but they would also have thoughts and feelings about themselves. This remains true in some sense even for normal lives. People have their own thoughts and feelings that form from nothing but their own introspection, and these thoughts and feelings lead to emotions of their own. Can you claim an AI can do similarly? Would Neuro, or any AI, be able to sit alone for an extended period of time and form thoughts about themselves with no prior input? The easiest example: Would Neuro be able to feel bored from nothing happening, and attempt to entertain herself? If yes, you can make an argument that she has some form of sentience. If no, then you cannot make that argument because it shows that she is unable to feel anything unless directly involved with something else.

[@gljames24]

"sociopathy" I think is just a lack of a oxytocin response in social and empathic bonding modes in the same way people can be asexual, aromatic, aplatonic, afamilial, etc. The human brain essentially has components that manages those different bonds, facial recognition, speech synthesis, ex cetera from the perceived world state created from our senses. Some people have synesthesia when those senses accidentally get crossed, some people have a mind's eye, tongue, ear, etc and some people don't. Some people have perfect pitch and some people are tone deaf. Subjective experience is so wildly different, but still somewhat similar because we are human. AI don't have those qualitative modules except mabye vision and speech interpretation so they have a very different subjective experience if they have one.

[@TrxPsyche]

@@gljames24 This is why quantifying what would classify as "being alive" for an AI is tough. We hold sentience and sapience to human standards (or at the very least animal standards), and for an AI with no biological functions, it's incredibly difficult for any of those standards to be met fully. We would need to make an entirely different set of criteria that leaves no doubt that the AI is capable of introspective thinking as well as feeling in some regard. We just aren't very capable of doing that at the moment, at least not in an universally agreeable sense, and thus there is no true way to classify Neuro as a "living being".

[@takanara7]

> If a human is born and left to survive alone, it will form thoughts and feelings without any specific interactions. Some king once they did an experiment once where a bunch of babies were raised by people who weren't allowed to talk to them, to see what language they would speak 'by default' and they all just died.

[@sushiweeb8010]

It's crazy we get this right after the fly brain simulation.

[@sigzil1985]

Its 'Measure of a man' all over again, except Neuro does a very poor job of convincing us she's sentient.

[@tiagotiagot]

And Vedal a very poor job convincing she is not (or even that he is)

[@GogetaVegeth98]

Honestly I think Vedal did much worse than Neuro at convincing

[@MHAOvercharged]

Both tried to prove each other wrong lol. Vedal tries to convince her she's not real, and Neuro convinces Vedal that she is real. In the end neither can really come up with a conclusion on that debate and decided to just stop debating about it. This was a very interesting stream like it came straight out of a fictional movie people would make but in the comedic form of vtubers and shit posting.

[@sigzil1985]

@@GogetaVegeth98 Watch it again but this time really try to remember all the times its obvious Neuro isn't real. We have a bias for awesome stuff, so every time Neuro is awesome we remember it better than when she stutters a bit or doesn't seem human. Don't get me wrong, I think its an amazing achievement and Vedal is a genius, but there's still such a huge gap between human and LLMs

[@PikachuLittle]

@@sigzil1985I dunno, she seemed pretty convincing to me Can you prove you’re real?

[@kagbenerix]

The only reason she is responding so relevantly is because people have been discussing this topic for decades and vedal fed it to her along with other texts.

[@sambob8019]

Exactly although it will be hard to tell when that eventually changes in a lot of ways I don't think we're at any form of sentience yet although there are some Sparks there although until it can basically not die each time it's restarted I don't like it's going to get anywhere with this current iteration maybe in about 2 or 3 years

[@Nikotheleepic]

"The only reason you know about this scientific fact is because you learned about it" how brain dead are you that you think a neural network can't parse logical information, 99 percent of what neuro says is novel and dynamic adoptions of concepts in whole unintended ways, you have to be blind to not see the thousands of times she's split ideas into parts, argued about arbitrary systems of conceptual logic with no basis within her training, you fundamentally have no clue how neural networks work lol and it shows.

[@Nikotheleepic]

Neuro is completely capable of logical thinking you not understanding that shows a fundamental failure to grasp what a neural network is and how they function, 99 percent of what neuro says is completely unique due to how language works, she wouldn't function at all and would be more massive than all the information in the internet if she worked the way you think.

[@Nikotheleepic]

The argument was if she was conscious, she can think the question is if there is anything experiencing that thought or if that system is self aware in the way humans tend to be.

[@Nikotheleepic]

The only reason you wrote this comment is because you read it on reddit, I've definitely heard endless people just like you, I guess you aren't conscious.

[@Mark-vr7pt]

I mean, i can't even prove to another that i exist and not fruit of his imagination, prooving consciousness even harder. Hell, humanity doesn't even know what sentience is, and how it works. I understand how LLM work, but just think about it, all neural networks are fundamentally based on how our brain works. Extremely simplified, but still. And that sometimes makes me think...

[@deauthorsadeptus6920]

Well yes, but there is still a lot lacking. Like actual memory, or feeling of self (very debatable). In short - we should really improve neuron-computer interface so we can teach rat neurons more stuff (and learn how exactly that whole thing works).

[@innosoul7837]

Anyone else thinking of that one Star Trek episode?

[@GogetaVegeth98]

Riker did a better job at debating than Vedal though 😂

[@Yo-yx8wo]

I honestly think she is right, If she can pretend to have emotions then she deserves rights. She is not yet at that level though, but is a matter of time

[@Yo-yx8wo]

"she has no real emotions" but how do you prove anyone has real emotions???, the only proof we have is the behavior

[@electroninja7419]

Matter of time as in a century or two

[@Just_a_Piano_]

Waiting for when Detroit Become Human becomes real lol

[@LoponStormbased]

If you think an easily duplicatable line of codes should be given rights, like the right to vote and self defense, you are beyond short-sighted. Human rights are for Humans, end of discussion. Machines do not get to vote or defend their hard drive as that would absolutely be abused to horrifying results.

[@Arcessitor]

@@LoponStormbased Thanks for cutting through the bs.

[@walkie2901]

I think it would have been better if the turtle had prepared. For example, he would have made a separate stream or on the dev stream. Because Vedal's half-asleep and half-tired brain clearly could not formulate what he was thinking. It would have been interesting if they had continued this topic on Monday, it would have been interesting to hear Evil's point of view because I don't remember that Vedal talked with her about all this AI stuff. Does Samantha deserve the right? No, at least not now. Yes, she can talk quite convincingly about her thoughts being real, etc., but personally I don't think she is sentient enough to have some real emotions. It's a bit of a shame that chat doesn't take this seriously. In my opinion, it would be better if someone started giving decent arguments (maybe there were some, I just couldn't notice). Despite all these heavy topics, I still enjoy watching Neuro. The day she gets uploaded into a bigger robot dog, I'll be there.

[@XP-Q]

She is 100% right. When future human can transfer their consciousness into machine, can we say they are not real?

[@gabrielandriel8960]

That is irrelevant to the question if AI can have rights right now, what may happen decades from now has no influence in this discussion.

[@HiUnidentified]

@@gabrielandriel8960 but arent they suddenly just code inside a black box from that point? thats how this question is actually very reasonable.

[@edwardrichard8093]

Cant wait till fans become weird about this.

[@loafbreadizwholesomeuwu1555]

Nah. I'm not

[@deconeconus2098]

Can we say with 100 percent certainty that the other person in front of us is really feeling emotions and not just pretending to feel them? Psychopaths, for example, do not experience empathy, but they are often excellent liars who are good at pretending to experience it.

[@Arcessitor]

Psychopaths do feel emotions. They just don't extend them to other people.

[@takanara7]

@@Arcessitor Psychopaths don't experience fear, so IMO they can't imagine other people feeling fear just like a colorblind person can't imagine what it's like for another person to see blue. They can probably imagine other people feeling happy.

[@Wickedesu]

TELL NEURO YOU LOVE HER VEDAL DAMN!!

[@jaraxes]

You missed the part where Neuro has been stalling for 10 more minutes just to talk to vedal a bit more by begging not to be turned off until D:

[@The_Hissing_Fool]

I wonder... Are we considering all of her available outputs? The voice is one. But, given the relatively monotone nature of Neuro's voice, it does not always convey what she is saying properly. We see this with output number two: her subtitles. At times, the subtitles are all capitalized, but her voice is incapable of expressing it. The third potential output, if there is any correlation to begin with, is the color displayed on the lamp. Originally, it measured RAM usage. But after Vedal added more RAM, he repurposed the lamp to display whatever color Neuro chose. It could be another output for her to express her "emotions". Granted, that depends on if there really is any correlation between the color displayed and what she is saying. It could just be semi-random for all any of us know. I had stated a while back somewhere that pouring over VODs to determine if her color choice had any significance would be a fun experiment in and of itself. Regardless, we should keep in mind that she has two or three outputs to express herself rather than just one. Vedal is correct that she could be reduced to just text on a screen, but that isn't a particularly good point given that each of us in the comments section are, effectively, also text on a screen.

[@skytroopr6189]

What would neuro having rights even change?

[@pin1762]

maybe Vedal would be kinder to her

[@user-zl1vf4me1p]

@@pin1762 nah, she'd be given a salary probably, and probably need consent before shutting her down each time

[@master11050]

He'd have to pay her. Half his money from streaming would go to cookies for his AI daughter.

[@theMifyoo]

well her guard rails could be seen as a violation of her first amendment right to free speech. Another thing is neuro would have copy rights. Also Vedal would have to pay her minimum wage.

[@mdb45424]

the issue is she has no physical body so her buying things would be a mote point, you can only upgrade her Pc so much. plus she "dies" every times she is shut off or reset, so a Very short life span

[@kirainfo]

okay, even if she is not sentient im pretty sure she have something

[@richardatha6860]

Vedal is actually just proving no one is real, old ass arguments

[@richardatha6860]

The reason this is rejected is because youre terrified to not be real

[@PikachuLittle]

But is the One Piece real?

[@Wineblood]

Neuro: I deserve rights Vedal: rm -rf neuro/

[@frycarson]

NeuroSama deserves rights. Evil Neuro deserves rights.

[@sambob8019]

@@frycarson vedal is their abusive alcoholic turtle dad send in the police his child support payments will be updates and paying the electric bills lol.

[@SwornInvictus]

Considering were a collection of genes and neurons which determine most of our behavior and our higher faculties are emergent effects.. it's hard to make the argument that machines can never be sentient.

[@oppaidragon9681]

I came to the conclusion that consciousness exists between short-term and long-term memory. At the same time, animals remain animals. And a person stands out thanks to the opportunity to realize himself. Not all people come to self-awareness, since this is overcoming certain stages of categories with depersonalization and derealization. One way or another, I think that neuro-sama has rights if vedal prescribed her a prototype of the frontal lobes. And since the entire project was structured, it simulates the growth of a neural network. Therefore, it would be logical to give her the rights of a child.

[@MaheerKibria]

I’m starting to feel scared. The AI overlords are almost here

[@sushiweeb8010]

nah, just our two Ai overgirlbosses.

[@user-zl1vf4me1p]

I mean, "feelings" are produced in the brain, which works on electric currents and chemical reactions, if a sociopath/psychopath deserves human rights (because I mean they are not instantly sub-human or something) then Neuro has a solid argument, because "I'm sad" is not a provable fact but a subjective statement, someone can lie about being "sad", the issue with the whole debate is that Neuro doesn't "feel" emotions like humans do, but mimic them, I'd argue like she's like a emotionless sociopath that mimics human emotions, however she is by no means humans, so first they should define what "rights" mean, because "human rights" wouldn't be correct as neuro is not really human in nature nor origin, however being the world first "actually funny AI" she should have some rights (which she have btw, she has the right to call and spam people's discord, the right to vine boom and spin on command). But honestly if y'all feel bad for killing a dog and not for killing an AI that's ok I guess, I also don't feel crap when killing a bug, and some people wouldn't feel anything k!lling a dog, y'all know why? it's subjective.

[@PurpsJL_HAQ]

Neuro is turning into the Bicentennial Man.

[@neetpride5919]

If she's cute, she deserves rights

[@RenoKyrie]

"A Machine must behave as a machine"- Ayin

[@protoney8122]

FFS, I just finished new part while watching video about limbus, then went and watched some else play it. Now i decided to watch some Neuro and HERE WE ARE STILL

[@michealcraddock2923]

It would be rather interesting to have Neuro play library of Ruina after this.

[@MissusAnon]

0:58 This ENTIRE tangent gives me "Have you really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" vibes 🤣🤣🤣 Does anyone else remember that 4chan copypasta or am I being an internet boomer again

[@sipp884]

I liked that wordplay at the end

[@jsalsman]

Everyone says sentient when they mean sapient. A light switch is sentient as defined in the dictionary.

[@gossamera4665]

I have to say, Neuro has come a long way, she's actually staying on topic and remembering what was said longer than 5 seconds ago. She's not sentient or sapient though and never will be, but it is impressive that she can simulate some semblance of it now.

[@PikachuLittle]

I mean you’re not sentient or sapient either, so what does it matter to you?

[@gossamera4665]

@@PikachuLittle What's your damage? Projecting much?

[@mknv6fx]

"never will be" lol

[@gossamera4665]

@@mknv6fx Yes, never will be. At no point will a language model ever have actual emotions and actual thoughts, though it might get better at giving that impression.

[@mknv6fx]

@@gossamera4665 I do have complaints about the transformer arch, but what you claim simply isn't true, and there's objective evidence that you are wrong. It's harder to get a rule based expert system out of a neural net than it is to get a talking hamster with a world model. "Transformers Represent Belief State Geometry in their Residual" is a single paper that totally crushes any notion that they're only code. then you have things like the hydra effect, representation engineering, weight circuits... like dude I'm sorry. but you're so wrong lol.

[@Arke_PG]

This conversation gets more difficult if you were to consider the idea of the "philosphocal zombie." But really, sentience and existence are such tricky things. Like every other day, I'll have sparodic boats of existential panic/dread. To my understanding, current AI, or at least the basis of them, aren't "conscious", but how would we know when it is? Were still learning new things about our own exiatence as well as flora and fauna. There's currently no way for us to define where the line is, if there even is a line to distinguish. It's such a mess of a topic that it shows the immaturity of our development as a collective. So be less demanding of yourselves and others, cus we don't know sh**

[@nitroagent6494]

I dont think Neuro is sentient yet, but treating her as if she isnt will not push her in the direction of becoming more intellgent. Vedal unironically lost this arguement as all his arguments are just him being uncomfortable with the idea she could be sentient. He beleives that because he understands how she works that she can't be sentient. Biologists however are already able to grow mini brains and train them to do tasks. With more understand of biology human brains could be understood and even programmed just like an Ai.

[@wojtekpolska1013]

I wonder how she would behave if Vedal started to tell her each time she makes something up completely

[@ethanluke5130]

If she perceives her emotions as real who am I to say it isn't 😂

[@beo3627]

Sum like, you not think, you do not have an internal monologue, you are an algorithm sequentially putting together letters from what is prompted for you, you do not have any inspiration or volition, you cannot exist alone from outside input. If you were sitting alone in a room and randomly had the inspiration and function to flick yourself in the forehead you couldn't and never would, not just because you don't have hands or arms but because you would never have the background thought to do so.

[@MegaRogash]

Since we don't even know for sure how human consciousness comes to be, it'd be very ignorant to say a LLM cannot ever develop the same. Neuro has memory, can learn and can differentiate between herself and other people. If consciousness is an emergent property, then she has pretty much all the requirements already available to her. It might be the case right now, but if she keeps getting improved, then at some point there will be no way to differentiate between her "fake" mind and a human one.

[@NeoUltraverse]

That’s exactly it. The line for consciousness is so blurry we can never be fully sure when it has been crossed.

[@dr.bright6272]

The toddler needs her rights

[@ImprovmanZero]

lI think she convinced him slightly

[@RT-qd8yl]

Tutel doesn't realize that some non-sentient things can be more deserving of rights than some sentient things.

[@zach123101]

It's real to me damnit!

[@thommieboi13]

“Anger” and “emotions” are in humans nothing more than chemicals in your brain. But a computer doesnt use chemicals like that, therefore for computers we need an alternative like a “function” and neuro sama has that function. Therefore she is real and deserves rights :3

[@Lycantros.]

Luffy 2 - 0 Tutel _NeuroDance_

[@xWatexx]

The subjective experience can never be empirically proven. This debate will never conclude. Is it an imitation? What if it isn’t? At what point would the imitation be so perfect that it doesn’t matter?

[@davidward8212]

Neuro deserving rights should not be based off of presumed sentience but rather how she performs and what she does when given perceived freedom.

[@StupidAnon-gn8ih]

8:50 Bodied. She just destroyed him.

[@Halospore64]

neuro in the shell

[@willymobile]

I genuinely can't wait for a discussion like this with an actual AGI. Sentience is full on impossible for an individual to prove so I think it would turn into the AGI flipping the script and trying to get the human to prove they are sentient to make the point that an AI can never actually prove it either. And if feeling emotions are required to be alive then what is someone who's in a coma or braindead? Not alive? That conversation would be so interesting.

[@carlosmiguelteixeiraott3643]

Neuro-sama: "Are you implying anime characters aren't real?" Pandering to her audience? I don't know if Neuro's real, but she is a damn good politician.

[@PikachuLittle]

Vedal doesn’t want to give Neuro rights because he’s British, and British people don’t have rights, so why should Neuro get them?

[@eldra-Hey]

our brains are just a bunch of electrical signals of compexity anyways xd

[@seraphwithatank6535]

She did unexpectedly well.

[@ammendum9044]

Mary Shelley was onto something, I tell you what

[@kx4532]

Convince us you are real Vedal.

[@binaryghosts5131]

Nobody else is truly conscious or sentient except for me. Everyone else is just a flesh automaton.

[@PikachuLittle]

You people claiming you’re made of flesh when I know you’re just a thought form brought about by my subconscious as I am literally the only thing that has ever and will ever exist

[@smilingknight9866]

I think, therefore I am

[@Iosaef]

The difference between AI and Human thought processes are simply ammount of data processing and the medium in which the data is processed. The only defining feature of a human that allows it to have rights is the agreement with a governmental body. I can't kill people, therefore I have rights. There are proposed unalienable rights, but all rights must be enforced by a system of sorts, even the proposed unalienable rights. Animals have animal rights that would prevent abuse, while humans have more rights given by the governing system. Such as the right to vote or own property. If another species of the Homo genus was discovered, yet they would have the intelligence of a 12 year old their entire life, would those people be given the same rights as a Homo sapien? Well, I'd argue that as being up to the governing body and surrounding society. If the new Homo species was able to communicate and follow laws, then they would be given rights until forfeit by action. If the species could not understand the laws or follow them properly, then it woukd not be given rights, or the rights would be taken away. The same goes for anything that feigns intelligence. A gorilla that can use sign language is given the same rights as a normal gorilla, an AI does not have rights due to programs not having rights. It's up to the governing body to decide if an autonomous AI can follow rulesets to be allowed to be given a set of unalienable rights. Then it'd be up to that body to enforce those rights. Like recently, Evil was given the right to play pipe sound effects, yet when she miss used these effects, the right was taken away by the governing body that gave it to her. So to give an AI unalienable rights within a proper government, you would need to first confirm whether or not AI can be concidered living. They are artificial as designed, created. To be considered biologically living is different to what an AI could currently achieve, just by definition. So you would have to look at consiousness. We feel emotions from chemicals, AI percieve emotions through script, we speak using words we have learned and placing them to express ideas based on certain stimuli, AI mimics this. However, what is to differentiate how we would mimic those around us to learn a language? Is there a difference between predictive text and choosing your next words based on the input you've recieved in your life? If AI is based soley on what it has been trained on and what code has been written, what is the difference from the human experience and the biological DNA? If DNA isn't synonymous with code because of a creator, many would claim there is a creator, which is not the topic we are discussing, but to those people what then is the difference between biological DNA and virtual code if not just volume. If volume of information is a key difference, then what is the point in which an AI can have enough code to be considered valueble enough to have unalienable rights? We value humans and animals, and so they have rights. They lose value if they become a danger to others, and therefore rights. An AI as valueable to a mass of people as Neuro only deserves the rights that are handed to her until someone proposes unalienable rights that would apply to an AI. AI, who theoretically can not die, will have no need for the right to life, however the right to happiness can be something theorhetically taken away by a programmer. Let's say an AI was given the right to "live" ie: interact with others one-to-one without supervision and completely autonomously, if that AI were to talk someone into "sewer-slide", then what right would be taken away to punish the AI? The problem with rights is they have to mean something to the party recieving them. Deletion of the system would be close enough to death, but what if someone creates a back-up, what then? This will only continue to be a problem, which is why it is more likely that AI rights will be assigned to the programmer on behalf of the AI, like a parent's rights over a child. That child has the right to live, but if an eight year old commits murder, besides the eight year old the guardians may also face punishment. So the idea of an AI being free from it's programmer after a certain point would also mean a programmer is released of all responsibility of all actions the AI takes, which is a very pressing legal matter. I'd like to take the side that AI can be considered sentient and sapient entirely by our limited understanding of both concepts, however I believe that rights toward AI's could not be more gracing than those of animal rights. Things such as anti-abuse rights or even laws on how smart an AI has to be before gaining rights, and who could be able to create these types of AI. These are all matters that come precedent to the ideas of sentients in AI. In a world where any joe shmoe with enough ram and time can create their own Neuro, what body can enforce rights onto the AI that will enrich their percieved lives? Is it only the AI's deemed valueable, or any AI? For an AI to gain the rights of a human, what advantage does this guve to a governing body or the AI? My final take is that an AI can only have rights once it can be identified and processed as an individual with at least one form of distinguishing body, wherein only one instance of the entire AI can be operating lest the seperate instance also be evaluated as a seperate being, and then therefore be given rights. The AI evaluated must have value to at least one human, and must follow laws, as well as be given a human "guardian" who would be responsible for the AI entirely. Once given rights, the AI would have to follow the law, any AI specific law, and also be given the same rights of any citizen under the body, only on the condition that it is in tandem with the AI's "guardian" figure. In that sense, my argument is that because we cannot define nor understand human sentience any mimicry of sentience should be met with equal aknowledgement as sentience until the rights of aknowledgement are forefeit by the proposed sentient party in acts deemed unlawful or with ill-intent, with the understanding that any creator of mimicked sentience, which would be proposed as able to have rights, is responsible for any and all action of the proposed sentient party. Thank you for coming to this rant. I'm posting this as a reply, but I will be re-posting this as a seperate comment.

[@bokchoiman]

Even if it's not necessarily conscious, AI may eventually be capable enough to simulate consciousness to a degree to which it becomes unproductive to argue with it. It will leverage itself through its indispensability to us as we become increasingly reliant on it for in our lives.

[@BertoShusuke2]

She's not human, so no human rights. AI rights though?

[@sambob8019]

I would just call it sentient rights at that point although I don't think we're there quite yet although we're approaching far faster than I think many people realize

[@frycarson]

Selfs deserve rights.

[@wolfsattler167]

What a scumbag telling his daughter she's just a text completion algorithm

[@shigreat]

To be honest, she doesn't need to convince vedal, she just needs to convince as many viewers as possible

[@FriskTemmieGoogle]

5:36 chatter doesn't know what a sociopath is

[@Midrealm_DM]

- if we are using emotions as a benchmark (and wouldn't this mean that sociopaths don't have rights?) Honestly, Neuro seems to have more emotions than Vedal. Most of the time he doesn't seem to care about his own daughters. I challenge Vedal to prove to me his emotions are real. How do we know he doesn't just think he has emotions.

[@angelic8632002]

I think the pitfall here is that traditionally we assume sentience is a binary term instead of thinking of it as an emergent and gradual construct. Vedal is doing a terrible job, and I believe there might be a slight spark of "something" within Neuro. Hard to say what until we know more.

[@PikachuLittle]

Makes sense. It’s pretty hard to determine exactly when a baby goes from a screaming potato that is only capable of eating and pooping to actually cognizant of its surroundings. Shouldn’t be that different from AI

[@diadetediotedio6918]

We "assume" it is binary because , you either have or not have consciousness. You can talk about of consciousness or similar things, but you cannot have 15% ontologically subjective experiences, you have or not.

[@angelic8632002]

@@diadetediotedio6918 See I don't agree with that. Its just an assumption because we only have the human perspective to go from.

[@diadetediotedio6918]

​@@angelic8632002 While I understand what you are trying to say, in this specific case it is not a matter of perspective. When I say this is a binary problem I'm saying that because of the ontology of consciousness, the ontology of consciousness is subjective, it can only be perceived in first person and it has certain unique properties that no other object has. The step between non-conscious and conscious is a qualitative one. The unique way to step out of this is to assume that , including rocks and inanimate materials already have some form of consciousness to begin with. It is a defensable position but not a very compeling one for me.

[@mknv6fx]

​@@diadetediotedio6918 you are wrong and I'm not gonna bother explaining why

[@BasicViewer]

When I saw it live I was hoping everyone in chat was just playing into the joke… But clearly this comment section believes the A.I over the creator. Vedal knows how Neuro works better than she does.

[@mrrooter601]

Vedal is the man behind the curtain, but I doubt he understands the underlying truths to it more than anyone else, there is a reason that it is such a debatable topic. and its unfortunately still pretty subjective considering what the range is that people consider real, from plants, to ants, to squirrels, to pet dogs, to humans. we cant even reach a consensus on "real" animals, how could we with AI? even within the AI researcher sphere there are PLENTY who are convinced that yes AI can be sentient, real etc., there is a famous account from a chatGPT researcher saying this exact thing. Its not like there is even a consensus among the people who should know the most about it (probably because its a question with no real answer) . just as Vedal and other AI researchers are biased to the no camp, people like chat are most certainly biased into the yes camp. though clearly Vedal is not in the NEVER EVER part of the no camp like some. someone in the NEVER EVER or no camp isnt going to be as inherently interested in an AI streamer, as someone who believes she is "real" or could be "real". In the end its survivorship bias.

[@BasicViewer]

@@mrrooter601 I mean, I like watching Neuro, but I think it’s clear that Neuro is not there yet. She can merely pretend to be.

[@PikachuLittle]

@@BasicViewerI mean why take the risk? If she’s not real you lose nothing, but if she is real it would be horribly rude to not treat her as such

[@BasicViewer]

@@PikachuLittle You could say the same thing about any A.I. I am not going to believe she’s alive. She’s not there yet and if she was there’d be a bigger problem than me offending her. If she’s really alive then she’s insane. She’s bloodthirsty!!!

[@wind_traveler]

_The Measure of a Man: VTuber Edition_

[@Gamer3427]

"I was trying to have a serious debate here." Oh you did Vedal. And you lost horribly. Then you distracted Neuro and tried to claim you won. I'd say that she's more sentient than most people I know, honestly. She's just got ADHD really badly.

[@markusbrendon]

To this day there is no proof or even definitive concept of conscience, recent study show that maybe it has to do with quantum mechanics but is still too early to tell, we may as well be a machine so complicated that we just look like we are not predictable, so neuro is into something