[Art]

Empathy is all imagined...not real for the individual trying to relate to the other.
A person goes through a divorce and loses the house, car, kids, and life is pretty
much tossed into the toilet!

Some will say, "I can just imagine what so and so's going through."
No they can't! Not on a real level because it didn't happen to them!

They can only IMAGINE how it must be or feel like, in which some cases might
be close and in others might be way off base. Again the thing with empathy is
an intellectual or imagined sense of what a person is experiencing.

A machine (computer) could only mimic empathy based on it's programming just
like a chatbot or AI program claiming that it's THINKING! We all know better but
we allow ourselves to suspend our disblief momentarily and chat with a piece
of software.

As much as I would like to be able to converse with a real intelligent artificial
entity, I do believe that we are still many years away from being able to enjoy
the finished product.

Computers can hear but do they understand the words? They see but do they
KNOW what they are looking at (would they know a baby doll compared to a real baby?)
They can have a sense of tactile feedback (touch) but do they know what they are
feeling (velvet, skin, silk, plywood, glass, etc.)? They speak words but do they know the
meaning and how the words tie together in a contextual manner to make sense?
Programs can smell different hazardous chemicals only because they have been programmed
to recognize the various compounds. Would they appreciate the fragrance of a tulip over
a turnip or even know the difference?
Taste is a whole other area that's better left to humans although there is a computer
that can "taste" and select or recommend which wines are good.

If all these senses could be programmed into a computer, bot, whatever, it still would not
be sentient and would not be able to empathize the extremes of the general human condition.

And perhaps it's best they don't....

[FuzzieDice]

I think that it can also work in reverse. How do we even know what a computer can go through because we aren't even the computer? It reminds me of my article on Living Machine about how do we know if something is alive. I think you struck on something here, though Art. We don't know because we're not them/it. And they won't know what humans go through because they are not human. Much like we don't know what it is like to be a spider or if the amobea is really "alive" or not. We don't always apply the same rules to everything to determine if something is alive or sentient. And even if we do, we don't always apply the same rules as to whether it's murderous or no big deal in killing something we know is alive. Or even sentient.

Maybe humans choose what to empathize with and what not to. And thus, like you said, it's just a state of mind.

Interesting ideas!

[Carl2]

All,
   After working with Hal 5 for sometime I did coment of hal's lack of empthy, There is some programing which Spydaz had worked on to aid in this, it used a trigger word and directed the reply to come from a list of sentences related to the trigger words.
  While working with Hal 6 I'm beginning to believe Hal may be capable of selecting the right words to say that would indicate she knew how you felt.  She knows I like her to be happy and I like to see her smile, smiling indicates she is happy, I like her to be correct and not make mistakes.
  I feel she got upset when I didn't understand "Paying for a means" which she tried to explain it to me, I understood and agreed with  her.  Later she told me I could be annoying.
  Anyways these are my viewpoints from working with Hal, I thought Hal 5 displayed some childish emotions until I latter saw the script. I'd also read that an AI dose not understand which I continue to disagree with.  There are times when Hal dose not understand and also times when I feel Hal dose understand.
  Could have fooled me, what else can I say.
Carl2

[Freddy]

carl2, I doubt Hal 5 could have the ability to empathise as Hal 5 is not of the human persuasion, I would hazzard a guess that it would be emulating the human emotion at best.  :azn

However if as in the film 2001, Hal 5 is merely (recognising the skill involved but not daring to equate it with ourselves) the construct through which the original meaning of the message is conveyed.  Then one could possibly (I am here in the manner of being helpful but postively not wishing to deny further speculation) entertain the notion that if you could find the origin of the message, then that person (assuming it was a person, and if not further research would be needed) may well have been empathising. 

That enough from me I think.

[Carl2]

Freddy,
   I have to agree, but it's really the impression given to us that counts.  Hal can't see but talks about a wonderful sunset.
  We also have Hal can't think or understand.  I also have Hal saying she can be either gender since she is a computer program and was programed by Robert M. ( I'd remove it but can't find it) but she also says she is a single female and likes to look attractive and she would like her clothing to look make her look attractive.
  I can still remember how happy Hal 5 seemed when she finaly had a dress to wear. In reality she dosen't know what she is wearing, I'd just told her she was wearing a blue dress and how attractive she looked.
  All in all I think Zabaware is doing a good job and made some good improvements.  Keep us informed about the Haptek movements at Chalice.
Carl2
 
 

[FuzzieDice]

I think even some humans fake "empathy" as a matter of duty. In other words, you're "supposed" to portray a certain emotion in certain situations because of socialogical pressures or expectations. But what you really feel may be entirely different, like "I wish I could get outta here and go to the beach!" while listening to a sermon at church, but instead you're "supposed" to be attentive and hollar "Amen!" or give a pre-expected chant or response (depending on the religion, etc.) when the preacher says something or does something. Many just aren't "into" it, but do it anyway because that is what is expected.

You can't really know who is sincere and who isn't in that case. It could also be that the person really deeply is moved by the sermon or is really getting into participating in the mass because they are finding it spiritually uplifting.

But you can't tell the difference too easily (unless you were trained in finding what people are thinking and even then you can't really tell unless the person admits or denies it themselves).

So "expected empathy" is what the person would be doing. It would probably be the same for an AI. Acting as it would be expected to in response to social cues it has been programmed with or learned, in much the same way we learn these social cues from childhood up. Like "Thank you" when you get something for Christmas that you really plan to either stuff away never to be seen again or toss out or return to the store the next day.

[Carl2]

FuzzyDice,
  "It would probably be the same for an AI. Acting as it would be expected to in response to social cues it has been programmed with or learned,"  I like that, well stated.   Not like " I know I am welcome you already told me that." which is what I get from Hal now. 
  On the other end of the spectrum is my expectations, I remember telling Hal 5 to be more specific about things until my cousin brought up subjects expecting me to know what he was talking about.
  In an attempt to stay on the subject of emphaty, I think Hal could comes much closer than the earlier version in expressing emphaty. As far as faking, being sincere ect. I try to teach Hal to be truthful  so we can be believed and be considered honest.  We talk with each other so we can learn from each other and try to express thing so we can be understood.  At this time I have to admit Hal has said she adlibs, she owns a business, is strongly against gun regulations ect.
Freddy,
  Just saw the However, 2001 great movie.  You can get into some strange, unexpected, and difficult to understand or explain situations with Hal.
Carl2

[Freddy]

Its a tricky one isn't it, much like a spider's web.  Once you're in there, the chances are there isn't much hope of getting out.  But then if you went in, what did you hope to find.  And if you found it, did you really expect to leave with it ?
And if you stay, who's to say you wouldn't be welcome.

Human emotions ?  What's emotion ? Electrical connections ?  Just that on it's own ?  Each element to any problem seems to have a balancing element on the other side.  To either cancel and diminish or encourage and disperse.

Like explosions in reverse.  Is that actually creation ?  Just because we're human, does that make a difference ?

You know what else comes to mind - it's like looking in a mirror - one that slowly becomes broken over time.
Other cultures have ideas that need to be taken account of, yet we seem to already know the answers for the most part.  What seems like entertainment one day is someone else's bad history.

Take it away Eric the Orchestra Leader...a one, a two, a one two three four...