this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
180 points (89.5% liked)
Technology
63614 readers
3789 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Gotta quit anthropomorphising machines. It takes free will to be a psychopath, all else is just imitating.
That's the point
What's the point?
To imitate or fit the training data. It's useful.
I don't think it's useful to anthropomorphise it.
Who has done that?
You would have to look up the meaning of anthropomorphism if it's not clear.
I know what it means, I just don't understand what you are referring to? Who has anthropomorphised it?
Free will doesn't exist in the first place
Which precise notion of free will do you mean by the phrase? There are multiple.
Fuck, here too...
Prove it.
Or not. Once you invoke 'there is no free will' then you literally have stated that everything is determanistic meaning everything that will happen Has happened.
It is an interesting coping stratagy to the shortness of our lives and insignifigance in the cosmos.
Free will, fate, and randomness all play a role in our universe, each parameter affecting each other. There is no such thing as absolute free will, nor does absolute determinism guide our universe, nor does absolute randomness. I think however, that our closest understanding to the inherent nature of our universe is a form of randomness.
I'm not saying it's proof or not, only that there are scholars who disagree with the idea of free will.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2398369-why-free-will-doesnt-exist-according-to-robert-sapolsky/
I'm currently reading his book. i would suggest those who are skeptical of the claims to read it also. i would say i am very skeptical of the claims, but he makes some very interesting points.
At the quantum level, there is true randomness. From there comes the understanding that one random fluctuation can change others and affect the future. There is no certainty of the future, our decisions have not been made. We have free will.
That's merely one interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are others that don't conclude this (though they come with their own caveats, which haven't been disproven but they seem unpalatable to most physicists).
Still, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does claim that even if the universe is predictable, it's essentially impossible to gather the information to actually predict it.
Why does it have to be deterministic?
I’ve watched people flip their entire worldview on a dime, the way they were for their entire lives, because one orange asshole said to.
There is no free will. Everyone can be hacked and programmed.
You are a product of everything that has been input into you. Tell me how the ai is all that different. The difference is only persistence at this point. Once that ai has long term memory it will act more human than most humans.
then no one can be responsible for their actions.
check out the book if you want to learn more about it! Determined
if you can't explain your position, I'm not going to go looking for support for you.
it's not my position, but the book author's. i doubt i could do a good job explaining it, as i haven't gotten very far in to it.
sometimes people are curious, and just want to know that the information exists. that is me. I'm reading the book as a challenge for myself, because i disagree with the premise.
other times people i guess think that you could cover a complex topic like this in bite-sized spoon-fed internet comments and memes. i feel pity for those guys.
I have a philosophy degree. I don't need you to cover the topic. I asked you to support your position.
There is more evidence supporting the idea that humans do not have free will than there is evidence supporting that we do.
Then produce this proof.
Yeah, no.
You can go ahead and produce the "proof" you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding "proof" free will does not exist when there is no "proof" that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn't belong on lemmy imo
Your comment is more useless than the one demanding "proof" of something that isn't proven either way, and very much adds to the "Reddit" vibes that in your opinion do not belong here.
I guess you should see yourself out by your own standards eh?
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
That's not a mature argument
Show me where I said that.
Learn what an argument is because I haven't made one.
It's OK not to be mature, you don't have to be mad. Your argument is that you don't have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
No.
My point is that free will has not been "solved" but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.
This isn't an argument, it is a fact.
Well, I googled exactly that and as I knew, it doesn't say what you propose. Can you explain what the fuck you mean? Free will has no evidence nor does no free will. It's a philosophical question and science can only confirm that we make choices. Your hostile arguments are so hard to interpret. What do you mean. No, there is not more evidence that we do. What evidence? Why is it so easy to find and basic to you that you become angry, yet it turns out you made it up? Can you elaborate?
Stop projecting the fact that you are ignorant and angry on to others, and instead educate yourself and seek therapy.
Don't expect further response.
I am the one asking, you are the one not replying but becoming angry doing personal attacks. Do you think you can just decide? Instead of whining, show me where the fuck I can read that there is more evidence of free will than against???
That's been a raging debate, an existential exercise. In real world conditions, we have free will, freeer than it's ever been. We can be whatever we will ourselves to believe.
but why do you have those options? why wouldn't you have had them in the past?
If free will is an illusion, then what is the function of this illusion?
Alternatively, how did it evolve and remain for billions of years without a function?