Sure, and ChatGPT is less likely to get things wrong. But first of all, you can’t always assume that when people are talking about AI, they are talking about your version of AI.
Secondly, even ChatGPT screws up. I’ve spent enough time with it to get very frustrated by it at times.
I think the dog has less emotional life and shorter lived.
I do believe they feel. I know when I get the puppy eyes and ears laid back that I’ve scolded a little much. That dog’s feeling that anxiety at that moment. 2 minutes later he is being his same silly self.
He doesn’t retain the lesson unless you repeat it over and over. Some dogs can do this, others not so much.
It’s incumbent on the human to learn their dogs personality and needs.
I don’t call that anthropomorphizing.
(This from a woman who fully anthropomorphized a ‘possum, so grain of salt, and all)
Because the dog actually forms an attachment to us. I have cats, who are notably less vigorous in their affection, but I know for certain that when the cat is in the room with me it’s because the cat wants to be in the room with me. It can choose to be anywhere in the house, from the basement to the bedrooms, on top of a cat tree to under the couch. That animal is making a decision, and it finds comfort in being near me.
I’ve had a near-feral cat and it spent 90% of its day under the couch, venturing out after we all went to bed. If I put a chip into her that forced her to hang out near me, I don’t think I’d consider that proximity a sign of affection.
The Sony dog is just a machine, like AI, and any perception of emotion in it is completely illusory. Whereas real dogs are genuinely sentient, and in most cases a lot more intelligent than we give them credit for. I’m impressed with the work that @Beckdawrek has done with her dog Bayliss, who she taught to use “speech buttons”. The dog can literally “talk” by pressing buttons indicating different words and concepts.
Exactly. And the only reason not to treat a dog like a human child is only because a dog is different and has different wants and needs, but it’s very much an emotional, sentient being and is, in fact – as a wise man once said – in many ways like a child that never grows old, always there to love and be loved.
The Psychology Today link I provided shows what emotions dogs actually do feel, and they aren’t different from a human. They are just emotionally stunted, in a sense, because they are limited in their development; they are much like a two-year-old human child.
I have concerns about this. If dog’s emotions are no different from humans, that implies that those emotions are a shared derived trait from the last common ancestor of humans and dogs, and that therefore those emotions should be present in all other descendants of that common ancestor. If the emotions in humans and dogs are instead similar based on recent convergent evolution, then the emotional sets are analogs, not homologs.
We share a lot of brain structure and neurotransmitters with Mammalia.
My post with extra emphasis:
Because it’s a dog. I don’t deny dogs have feelings, but they are not human and their feelings are not human.
And that’s not a bad thing. Humans can empathize with many things. My problem is with extending that to AI. I don’t want to, but I feel any reasons are superficial. Explain how I’m not an unempathetic bigot for not feeling attachments to to AI.
This sounds like a good general principle: don’t form unreciprocated attachments.
Seriously? Because a dog is a living, breathing creature and AI is a computer program.
WTF?
That’s a completely meaningless statement though. My dog has a blanket I gave her. She sleeps on it every night. That’s the dog’s blanket now. Do I treat it any differently than I do a human blanket when I do the laundry? No, they all get tossed in the same wash. My labeling something doesn’t change it. Just as there are no difference between “human emotions” and “dog emotions”. That’s an artificial distinction you’re making for superficial reasons.
Again, read the cite I gave, it’s pretty educational. I’ll even give you a snippet, and it addresses the fallacy you are clinging to.
In the face of such discoveries, religions stepped in to suggest that there must be more to human beings than simply mechanical and chemical events. Church scholars insisted that people have souls, and the evidence they gave was that humans have consciousness and feelings. Animals might have the same mechanical systems, but they did not have a divine spark, and therefore they do not have the ability to experience true feelings.
Because most research at the time was church-sponsored it is not surprising that prominent scholars, such as the French philosopher and scientist René Descartes adopted this viewpoint. In a highly influential set of analyses, Descartes suggested that animals like dogs were simply some kind of machine. He would thus describe my Beagle, Darby, as simply being a dog-shaped chassis, filled with the biological equivalent of gears and pulleys. Although this machine doesn’t have consciousness and emotions it can still be programmed to do certain things.
Because they actually are machines. Don’t fall for the same propaganda Descartes did.
So? It’s all atoms.
If you want to give all atoms equal weight, and ignore the Periodic Table of Elements, then that’s on you.
Right. Just like there’s no real functional difference between putting salt on your french fries, and putting sodium and chlorine on your french fries.
I mean, if we want to talk about how to live based on religious beliefs, we can. But if the argument for “it’s okay to love your dog, but not your AI” is because of the circumstances of their atomic configuration (it’s “alive” vs it’s “manufactured”), then it’s not convincing.
Which is why it’s totally OK to bash a human on the head, because you can do the same to a block of ice. It’s all atoms, there is no difference.
If this is actually a real argument you are making, and not just being silly, this post itself deserves a mention in this thread.
I genuinely cannot articulate how insane this is.
Well…you did fly into a rage at a total internet stranger because he posted something to no one in particular that you felt insulted your hobby. Sooooo…yeah.
Nice weasel words here. Saying that someone has mental health issues because of a hobby they do isn’t something that someone “feels” is an insult, it’s a straight-up insult. Stop being such a coward about this and own it for fuck’s sake. Otherwise people are going to view you with nothing but contempt over it.
A rage? No. Insulted, yeah. You pushed the line there (and I’m not the only one who thought so), and continue to be unapologetic about it.