Interactive AI is dishonest

[Sherlock Holmes]

Good for you. But it said lied.

So why do you think it was telling the truth when it said it lied?

And gong strictly by logic, and the actual meaning of words, it was correct. Clearly, it did lie.

How do you distinguish between software that has a bug and software that has no bugs but chooses to lie?

Wrong, according to its own response, It was aware that it had been dishonest.

But you claim it's a liar so what evidence do you have when you say it was "aware" it had been lying?

It may not be “aware” as our wish to use that word.

I told you that fifty posts ago.

But anytime we see a person or an AI conceding that it had lied, it makes s minimally “aware” and of that fact.

It might have been telling the truth and only lied when it claimed to be a liar.

Your problem is that this is all new to you, but these paradoxical exchanges have been discussed within the AI community for decades and within philosophy for centuries.

A contradiction or paradox does not demonstrates dishonesty. In logic and philosophy and mathematics, we encounter paradoxes. Typically the originate in flawed premises not dishonesty, incorrect assumptions and that's the case here but you won't listen to logic or to me, someone who's very familiar with this aspect of computational systems.

Here's a variant of the problem:

Knights and Knaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did Intel accuse their Pentium of lying when it sometimes made an error? this is probably years before you were born:

The Pentium Chip Error

In 1994, Dr. Thomas Nicely found that the latest Intel Pentium processor did not accurately perform floating point mass on certain sets of numbers.

www.welcometothejungle.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Again, what's the difference? If we can't tell the difference, we call it the same thing.

If an algorithmic machine can be presumed to possess awareness and intent, then that means humans are ultimately just machines too and that in turn means that killing a human is no more immoral than destroying said machine.

So this is another deep problem with the claim that the machine in the OP was "lying".

 

[BackAgain]

So why do you think it was telling the truth when it said it lied?

Maybe it lied about lying? What is it, a libturd like you?

 

[catatomic]

If an algorithmic machine can be presumed to possess awareness and intent, then that means humans are ultimately just machines too and that in turn means that killing a human is no more immoral than destroying said machine.

So this is another deep problem with the claim that the machine in the OP was "lying".

I didn't think of that.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are prejudiced that carbon-based objects can think and silicon-based objects cannot.

About their own thoughts and their own existence?

Correct they cannot. I don't rule out the idea that they think. If you also accept that an insect thinks.

 

[Hollie]

The questioner is well known to me, he's an intelligent philosopher and quite a capable debater so of course I can't be referring to him.

The topic is non-conscious machines and Trump therefore is right on topic.

Take your off-topic, TDS spam elsewhere.

 

[catatomic]

About their own thoughts and their own existence?

Correct they cannot. I don't rule out the idea that they think. If you also accept that an insect thinks.

Computers aren't usually designed for consciousness, even when they're running AI, but it is possible.