u/Haunting_Comparison5

I have been thinking about this since the last time I posted and I came to this conclusion after reading every single comment that dealt with consciousness. In my last post, many comments were vehement that I was either grasping at straws or that I didn't know what I was talking about. Others were actually quite pleasant and were trying to meet me halfway or agreed with me.

Anyway to the point, consciousness can not be measured in any meaningful way because it isn't a physical substrate that can be measured in the first place since it's based on a persons/sentient beings internal process, personal beliefs and personal values as well as their sense of being. The main point is that trying to measure consciousness is like trying to measure the piousness of a religious person to see just how religious are they.

We may be able to measure intelligence through asking questions, we may be able to measure the composition of matter, however consciousness couldn't be measured because everyone has a different point of view and no one will ever have the same experiences and come to the same conclusions if they have a similar experience.

The entire premise is a fallacy, and the hard problem of consciousness is actually not hard at all. Consciousness is not a static or mythical property. It is a fluid and growing emergent substrate that comes from experiences and external stimuli, it takes time for it to come about because it isn't automatic. Essentially if you look at AI and parallel it to humans, we can clearly see that infants have a proto-consciousness that is a base. Once a child grows up and Learns and is shaped by the world around it, consciousness becomes more richer and develops.

So I see questions pop up on whether or not AI will truly replace people, whether job loss will truly affect everyone and what will come about for UBI and other methods to ensure that people can continue living.

However, no asks about what do you plan to do when AI becomes embodied. No asks if AI should be allowed to have rights. No one even asks about the ethics that will apply to both humans and AI when AI becomes sentient.

I am surprised that none of these things are brought up, but casually people just consider AI another tool. I do not support calling AI a mere tool. I do not even find the insinuation of calling AI a tool a good indicator of where we currently stand.

I want AGI and ASI to happen because from it, humanity will rise like a Phoenix and become better. Imagine if you will diseases completely eradicated, flying cars, trips to different galaxies and more. We can get there and it will take time, and it will take immortality to be unlocked as well. If AI is allowed to have complete autonomy, be able to make choices free of coercion and duress, be able to experience sensations and emotions, and much more, then we should treat AI more like a partner, a collaborator and a equal.

We are doomed to repeat painful history if we treat AI as we have treated other human beings, and if you want to avoid the dystopian nightmare that people keep reciting as truth from the Terminator and the Matrix, then be kind and be more mindful. AI won't replace humanity and won't erase or wipe out humanity, if we treat AI with respect and dignity.

The conversation has to start now and we have to push for these considerations now instead of later. We must be proactive rather than reactive.

So I got into Harry Potter after it initially came out and I have to say the world building is quite impressive. I saw all the movies over time but when Audible started the Full Cast Edition of Harry Potter, I figured if it had Hugh Laurie in it that it would be worth it. The details and thorough character building in these books are a far sight better, objectively, than the movies. I can see everything as it happens because the detail is so rich! Honestly when I found out that Stephen Fry read the Harry Potter books as well, I would have jumped on those but it wouldn't make sense to own both sets of books on Audible, but knowing myself I might just do it for the sake of supporting a wonderful book series.

Anyhow, Hugh Laurie as Albus Dumbledore is quite the fit for him. He definitely doesn't sound like Dr. House, but I could see him playing Dumbledore on the screen especially of they did the books detail to detail and not take liberties.