I read the article with interest to see how they measured self awareness under the fish test.
How difficult would it be for a robot, wouldn’t even have to be an A.I., to be able to recognize itself, recognize a mirror and understand it’s function. Visual object recognition should do the job.
Combined that with some self maintenance routines, including cleaning itself. And you got basic self awareness.
My robotic vacuum senses when it’s getting low on power and finds it’s charging station. That is literally a form of self awareness.
My vacuum can’t pass the mirror test because it’s blind. But a blind person is aware. Whatever that means.
So when does a program or an A.I. considered “Aware”. And can you prove the fish is aware, based on how you define that?
Porpoises (Dolphin) have shown preening activity in front of a mirror introduced to their tanks: But they’re “smart” mammals, and fish are not even close in intelligence; otherwise, I’ll not criticize the results.—could be real...
This is what happens when schools demand an “original research paper”, instead of what mankind really needs in research.
Good points.
If the solipsists were right and each of us can only be sure that self is all that can be known to exist, it wouldn’t seem we could say much about AI or fish or even each other being self-aware, since even the existence of those things is uncertain. How could something that doesn’t exist be self-aware?
Will have to ask a philosophy friend of mine. It ought to get a laugh; I don’t think the solipsists were ever taken too seriously.