pull down to refresh
That makes me wonder how much self-learning is required for humanness because if it's a gate for humanness, it's probably a threshold. Otherwise, more self-learning would mean more humanness and younger people would be more human because they have an easier time learning. I'm not sure it's a gate to consciousness, but I accept that self-learning is an important part of humanness.
reply
After thinking a bit about it, I think this is where our disconnect comes from:
I'd define it as it is a traditionally programmed program - be it with a lot of complicated math to make it useful - as the code is static and separate from the training outcomes.
All the "learning" is captured in the dataset (the weights) and, post-versioning freeze, in peripheral systems (skills, memory, system prompts that guide a path by manipulating input into the program, pre-sorting activations.)
That's why I have to stand by my point that for this to become closer to a human or an organism, the code has to be replaced by something that is mutating and self-learning.
When that "launches", there better be a grounding in consciousness or we risk ending up with a self-replicating, evolving swarm of intelligences that will probably cause a bit of a crisis. Luckily, we don't have that. Also, I hope that tools remain tools. It's nice to be able to offload some work.