It's a difficult idea to put into words, but I'll try to elaborate on what I mean.
There are many things which respond to stimuli that most people wouldn't consider "conscious". When you press the gas pedal on your car, the car goes faster, for example. The means by which the stimuli causes a response is entirely mechanical here (the gas pedal causes more fuel to be injected into the engine, causing more energy to be released when it combusts, etc).
Most people don't think of the car as "feeling" that the gas pedal was pushed, because it's a machine. It's a bunch of parts connected in such a way that they happen to function together as a vehicle. If the car could feel, would a pressed gas pedal feel painful? Wood it feel good or satisfying?
There are also times when people are unconscious, yet still respond to stimuli. For example, what does it feel like when you are in deep sleep at night and you aren't dreaming? Well, it doesn't really feel like anything; your "conscious" self sort of fades out as you fall asleep and then it jumps forward to when you wake up. But if while you're asleep someone sneaks into your room and slaps you, you wake up right away (unconscious response to stimuli).
The philosophy of mind has been debating this for decades. Google "Mary's Room" and "p-zombies". There are people out there who truly think these thought experiments prove the existence of non-physical facts, and that our subjective experience is a direct perception of this reality.
You are fighting straw men way harder than others are moving goal posts. Who, specifically, argued vehemently in 2022 that dogs aren't conscious and now admits that they are? Who is in any doubt over whether cats and pigs have meaningfully different levels of consciousness than dogs? Are you or are you not simply inventing whole swathes of people who conveniently held the exact positions that you need people to have held in order for your argument to be convincing?
That is the problem with goal moving, it is the selective forgetting of what came before, thus making the present time seem new.
You think I'm making up swaths of people that used to think animals weren't conscious? That couldn't feel pain?
Time Line: ok, I might have date wrong, pre-2000 animals considered not conscious, many to not experience pain. By 2021-2022 there were enough people changing their mind that laws were being changed. It's been slowly shifting over a time range from 2000-2020.
Not sure Mid 2000-2020, versus 2022 really invalidates any of my argument.
I feel certain all mammals are conscious. I don’t think humans are doing anything special there.
The ethics of eating something that was once conscious is another thing entirely. Carnivores live by eating other animals. I’m sure there are plenty of animals that would love to eat me :-)
>>Only couple years ago, people would argue vehemently that dogs are not conscious.
This sentence makes it sound like you believe in 2022 everyone decided dogs are conscious in reaction to the latest shiny toy coming out of silicon valley.
You can find "people" who will argue anything, but I find it very hard to believe dog owners didn't tend to think their dogs were conscious a couple of years ago.
At any rate here's a quote from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
"In his seminal paper “What is it like to be a bat?” Thomas Nagel (1974) simply assumes that there is something that it is like to be a bat, and focuses his attention on what he argues is the scientifically intractable problem of knowing what it is like. Nagel’s confidence in the existence of conscious bat experiences would generally be held to be the commonsense view and, as the preceding section illustrates, a view that is increasingly taken for granted by many scientists too."
This would suggest sometime between when the encyclopedia article article was written (2016) and 1974 the ideas that animals like bats, cats and dogs are conscious became the majority view. It goes without saying but this has nothing to do with LLMs.
But even before then I find it hard to believe a generation who grew up watching Lassie (1954 to 1973) didn't believe dogs were conscious.
>There were long stretches of time when 'intelligence' was a benchmark for 'consciousness'.
I find that hard to believe? Really, the biological similarity of animals and humans would seem to be the obvious benchmark, not "intelligence" whatever that means.
The encyclopedia of philosophy again says
"Neurological similarities between humans and other animals have been taken to suggest commonality of conscious experience; all mammals share the same basic brain anatomy, and much is shared with vertebrates more generally. Even structurally different brains may be neurodynamically similar in ways that enable inferences about animal consciousness to be drawn (Seth et al. 2005)."
I was referring to 'people' as in general public, including STEM people on HN.
I doubt many of them were reading Nagel or contemplating Stanford studies on this subject.
Maybe you are objecting to 2022 versus slightly earlier, 2016? Is 6 years for public opinion to change really the hang up? In my haste, I had used slang terminology of 'a couple years', and everyone did the math, said that is 2022, and objected to the year 2022? OK. I had the dates wrong. Go with 2016.
Maybe 'dogs' are a bad example, since even the Pope says they go to heaven.
But you can't deny that for Pigs, Cows, Chickens, that up to 2005 and even up to recent years ~2020, it was commonly accepted that they were not conscious, and not intelligent and thus have no ability to experience pain.
Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, but plenty of dog owners eat bacon and don't think twice. So what is the difference? They are both conscious right?
So consciousness is not what we use to provide any moral standing?
The article was about how to 'test' for consciousness. The discussion was, could you apply it to AI. I was simply saying, that for many years 'intelligence' was used as a substitute indicator for consciousness and now that AI is 'intelligent' people were re-defining that indicator.
"But you can't deny that for Pigs, Cows, Chickens, that up to 2005 and even up to recent years ~2020, it was commonly accepted that they were not conscious, and not intelligent and thus have no ability to experience pain."
I'm not sure if you mean the majority opinion was they are not conscious? If so I do deny this outside of survey data showing otherwise.
I was alive since 1982 and have noticed no cultural shift on this topic. I imagine for most people whether animals are conscious has little to do with whether it's okay to eat them, I recall someone in high school once saying "being a vegetarian is stupid because animals eat other animals."
The U.S. president first pardoned a turkey in 1963 and it's been an annual tradition since 1989. I recall an author possibly making an overly speculative argument linking this to the fact most people in modern times grew up with children's movies like Bambi depicting animals as sentient.
I wonder if the view shifts measurably by region/state in the US.
There is definitely a right leaning/religious view that animals are not conscious. And this was the dominant opinion in the US for many decades. When I think back on when I encountered these opinions the most, it was mostly in Midwest and South. When I was living on east coast, there was more opinion's like you are expressing.
Even a few years ago when UK passed laws about squid and lobster. It was right wing pundits that were just howling at how stupid it was since these animals are not conscious.
Guess what we call the 'public', versus what we are exposed to locally, is the real disagreement here.
(I'd say the Turkey thing was a joke, not any indication of sentiment. Probably more a joke about crime, not animals.).
People are full of contradictions but the internet tells me 44.5% of U.S. households own dogs. Did those right leaning religious people own dogs, and would they have said, "Sure my pet is not conscious?" if asked?
Or was it only the delicious animals they love cooking that aren't conscious?
I don't think its possible to be working on 'absolutely nothing'. I think you'll find that if you really explore this idea that you can almost always go further. For example. Do you clean your house? Maintenance is something. The status quo is something and it need to be maintained to exist. I think you recognize this because you admit that you're working on yourself.
The only time I think you could truly do nothing is when you've passed.
I would say I was in a similar place - Wake up, Go to work, come home, watch youtube, sleep, repeat; I had projects I was interested in but couldn't bring myself to do them. For me, part of the answer was changing my environment, the people I was with, the culture was to chill because you're exhausted from work. Another part was, like you're doing now, working on yourself. Another, specific part of working on myself was taking inventory of the things I 'valued'. Did I truly still value those things or were they things from my youth that I am clinging to? Do I value them because I authentically value them or is it because culturally they are valued? Am I applying those cultural valued to places that matter to me. For example: "Hard work". I do value hard work, but the places I was applying that value did not provide return on the investment. So now I apply 'hard work' elsewhere.
I think it is both necessary and good to do this from time to time. Good luck on this journey.
Yeah it seems to me like a human bias against ignorance. We have this notion that if people that don't know the knowledge that we know they must be dumb because, "everybody knows ____".
Kids are literally just the definition of inexperienced.
"There’s a lot of software being produced that just doesn’t care about its users, or that manipulates them, or that turns them into the product. And this isn’t limited to social media: as a user, I can’t even book a room, order food, or click on the Windows start button without popups trying to grab my attention;"
I recently interviewed at Netflix and during the design portion of the interview I was tasked with navigating to a UI, creating a user-persona, and making arguments for or against how well the interface delivered on my goals as a user. I chose Amazon and "Parent of a family shopping for groceries". Mostly because I have a lot to say about the interface personally and I felt this would be useful in the interview.
Now it used to be that when you clicked on the account section in the top right of the interface - the page would refresh and nothing would change. I found this infuriating because the dropdown was just a hover. Turns out the interface now takes you to a landing page with the same info as the hover.
HOWEVER. During the interview, that hover (The one for Account), also advertised products to me. I mentioned that this is causing friction for me as a user, that what I want is to view my account information but I am being bombarded with more irrelevant things to buy.
The interviewer - some lead of design within the company said - "Well, you have to remember that all of these decisions are tested to death and there is good likely good reason/research to back up that part of the UI". I wish I had the presence of mind to say that response betrays the exercise we were doing but I digress.
If I was their partner I would read this as, "Oh, they understand that we have two different ways of communication and they are changing their own behavior instead of asking me to change mine so that we both end up saving time/money. This is what it looks like to be a good partner? Pointing out that your partner thinks differently from you is not the same thing as blaming them for something.
Could you explain, in your own words instead of putting the responsibility on me to interpret your meaning, how they are blaming their partner for the interaction?
Location: USA
Remote: Yes, please
Willing to relocate: No but occasional travel, OK
Technologies: React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)
Résumé/CV: Can email if interested:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/
Email: drewskenny@gmail.com
I'm a largely-self taught Full-Stack developer with a focus on the Front-End/Design side of things. I've got ~6 years experience professionally programming. At my last position I went from Developer => Tech Lead in about a year and before I left was leading 5/6 teams without failure to deliver. Knowledgeable in 508 compliance and architecting entire projects/Working within departments to solve issues. I'm the kind of developer who asks a lot of questions to as many people as necessary to get the job done.
I'm someone who's quite interested in learning to play music - took some classes in highschool (but my focus was the visual arts which is why I struggle to find time amongst my other hobbies, I'll get there)
I always wished that sheet music was rotated 90 degrees. The more I hear from musicians the more I think maybe that's not good... but there is something to be said about, "with experience you'll just get it, it become natural" especially with a system that's been around for hundreds of years...
There are some musicians out there who rotate the sheet music 90 degrees. These people exist. But I don't see a particular reason why one orientation should be much better than the other—maybe your eyes are better at following horizontally or vertically. The standard layout matches instruments like the flute, the 90 degree rotated version matches instruments like a piano.
Bullshit. The world is absolutely packed with standards that are standards because of nothing to do with being "the best". Perfect example: the imperial measurement system. Another example: logographic writing systems. Another: qwerty keyboard layout. Etc. Just because a thing is accepted today doesn't mean it's the best.
I mean, in America? Right now? Maybe not... okay definitely not but I ask the same thing about Higher-taxes for the betterment of all. No way it would happen here - the people wouldn't accept it but it does work elsewhere and the people there are, by the ways we currently measure, way happier than we are.
I think a culture that teaches the value of community and does a great deal to impart on the youth that we have the nice, comfortable lives (with arguably more freedom) is because we share those burdens and its part of our civic duty... that its patriotic to do so. I could see that working out.
Plus how crazy is it to think that cultures and societies did operate similarly in the past, pre-industrialization? Isn't this the basis for the family unit?
I don't disagree, but you need to be very careful how you define community. A community that is defined by who is included nearly always cannot escape an implicit declaration of who is excluded, and a community which includes everybody is no community at all. When you have an in-group and an out-group, you sow the early seeds of conflict and discord.
> Isn't this the basis for the family unit?
No, this is the basis for the tribe, with similar concerns about intertribal conflict. Modern societies enjoy such peace and improved quality-of-life outcomes precisely because the state largely subsumes these tribes, and where the state is unsuccessful at doing so (e.g. religious affiliation), has at least succeeded in eliminating much of the worst of intertribal conflict within the state's sphere of control.
> but you need to be very careful how you define community. A community that is defined by who is included nearly always cannot escape an implicit declaration of who is excluded, and a community which includes everybody is no community at all. When you have an in-group and an out-group, you sow the early seeds of conflict and discord.
Okay but, as far as I can read this its just universally true? Respectfully, you're not making the case for it being impossible and you're pointing to something that literally exists now. If it's hard, cool, I'm not afraid of difficult challenges, I honestly believe most people aren't afraid either.
> No, this is the basis for the tribe, with similar concerns about intertribal conflict.
That's fine, a bigger circle of people is exactly why I believe that your premise I was originally responding to doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think in the present day people are able to operate in several different tribes that are not in serious struggle with one another and there's nothing concrete to point to (as far as I know) that there's an upper limit?
In another comment you mention that "No one would choose to be a Janitor" and I think that is rooted in "At the snap of the finger we'd be socialist and that would cause chaos" kind of thinking. "Being a Janitor" is only a "bad thing" due to our present culture. I certainly don't think it's less important that someone is a Janitor as opposed to a Lawyer or something - The reason people "Don't" want to be Janitors right now is less to do with 'the job' and whatever stereotypes you have in your head but because it's one of the jobs that doesn't pay enough for someone to live comfortably. I don't think its a huge leap to believe that if you could live comfortably and with dignity as a Janitor, people would absolutely do it.
> you're not making the case for it being impossible and you're pointing to something that literally exists now. If it's hard, cool, I'm not afraid of difficult challenges, I honestly believe most people aren't afraid either.
I'm not making the case for it being impossible not because I believe it to be possible but because I'm coming from a place of humility that I may be wrong about it being impossible, because I honestly don't know all the relevant factors. But certainly I'm not familiar with any cases where it worked.
> I certainly don't think it's less important that someone is a Janitor as opposed to a Lawyer or something
Rationally, I agree with you here...
> The reason people "Don't" want to be Janitors right now is less to do with 'the job' and whatever stereotypes you have in your head but because it's one of the jobs that doesn't pay enough for someone to live comfortably.
... but here I disagree. Cleaning up after strangers is demeaning work, and not because of suicidal moirés but on an evolutionary level. You spread your shit to mark your territory, because the smell of shit told people to go away. Being forced to hold your nose and clean it up is not what marks a leader, it is what marks someone who has no other choice.
I think the people who volunteer to clean up their community beach, river, stream, city street would disagree with you. There's enough pushback to your current position that I can even think of memes that talk about this very thing
Also, this appeal to nature really doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. We do things that "go against our evolutionary nature" all the time. For example: None of us spread our shit anywhere. Or how, due to current culture and city design, people largely live isolated physically from larger communities. The list goes on.
The dynamics of group volunteering are different. When you get together with people to clean up a beach, the cleanup is the proximate reason you're there, but really you're there to meet up with others and socialize, with attendant interests like virtue-signaling and the like.
Go to any cleanup event like that and ask how many people do it by themselves, whether for fun or from a sense of moral duty, when there is nobody else to see them do it or to do it with them. Certainly there is no storage of places that need to be cleaned up, and would benefit by the efforts of individuals.
In this thread you've said both that people won't do 'unsavory' work, like cleaning, for social accolades but also that the people who do volunteer to clean up public spaces do it for social accolades (Virtue signaling)
I'm not going to pretend to know the motivations of all people who clean up beaches but it is unlikely that the overwhelming majority do it simply for clout farming. People are more than one thing. Regardless they are just one example of so many examples of good public work that people do right now - in a culture that I would argue does not meaningfully incentivize this behavior. I don't think whether or not people do it when they are alone is relevant here. We're literally arguing about whether people would in a different culture, not the selfish one we currently occupy. I think a society like that is not only possible but necessary.
But anyway, last thing I'll say is that I get the sense that your view is more informed by a pessimism about "how people are" - and that how they are is concrete and unchanging - rather than about data or thinking more holistically.
That's an upper-limit for social relationships not signing on to things conceptually - for example: Taxes. We know that our taxes go towards making things for all ~350 million of us (USA) or however populous your country and we're capable of recognizing that as a good thing. Or, at the very least, a necessary evil?
Location: USA
Remote: Yes, please
Willing to relocate: No but occasional travel, OK
Technologies: React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)
Résumé/CV: Can email if interested:
linkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/
Email: drewskenny@gmail.com
I'm a largely-self taught Full-Stack developer with a focus on the Front-End/Design side of things. I've got ~6 years experience professionally programming. At my last position I went from Developer => Tech Lead in about a year and before I left was leading 5/6 teams without failure to deliver. Knowledgeable in 508 compliance and architecting entire projects/Working within departments to solve issues. I'm the kind of developer who asks a lot of questions to as many people as necessary to get the job done.
