4 ms·

Isn't that how humans work? Sometimes I wonder if I have free will and sentience, or if I am just stringing words together based on some probability function.

Isn't that how humans work? Sometimes I wonder if I have free will and sentience, or if I am just stringing words together based on some probability function. I've no doubt taken into account copyrighted works and personal information when training my built-in neural network. The examples the article gives like "misremembering" the murder as the murder victim sounds like something a person would do. Knowing verbatim contact information of some random person is also possible. All in all, GPT-2 sounds a lot like us.

jakear 6y ago
It’s my understanding that under our current scientific understanding of the mind, we cannot have “free will”. Where would it come from? All science knows is that neurons receive inputs from sensors, mixes them together (with some quantum randomness sprinkled in), and eventually actuates muscles to produce outputs, exactly as GPT. Thus “free will” must come from some sort of faith. Either it was given to us by “God”, or we’re all part of some simulation and it exists on a level we don’t know about, or something else entirely too advanced for us to understand.
- ben_w 6y ago
  It depends what you mean by “free will” — the phrase “free will” is as ill-defined as “common sense” and “consciousness”. I take the view that ∀ x ∈ <free will definitions>, Has(x, humans) ≡ Has(x, AI)
  - jakear 6y ago
    I agree with your claim. I also believe many to see “free will”/consciousness/etc as that certain je ne sais quoi that separates the human experience from that of computers: ∀ x ∈ <free will definitions>, Has(x, humans) ≡ ~Has(x, AI) For these to both be true, <free will definitions> becomes empty. Thus I argue we have none. Edit, or rather it’s meaningless to argue if we have any or not, as it cannot be defined.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Yes, that also fits my observations of such arguments.
    - simplify 6y ago
      > or rather it’s meaningless to argue if we have any or not, as it cannot be defined. This sums up my view too. Can't argue about it if you can't define it.
- lolc 6y ago
  Free will is a cultural concept, not a biological one. Consciousness may be driven by a biological machine, but development of our ego is influenced a lot by culture. Free will is faith in the sense that we learn the concept from our culture as our sense of self develops. The assumption of having it shapes our thinking such that we can say we actually have it. A person who took their inner voice as voice from the gods would have a restricted free will in this view.
hyperpape 6y ago
Of course it isn't how the human mind works. You can ask a person "did you come up with that sentence, or is it something you read?" And they can answer that question. The answer isn't perfectly reliable, but it isn't completely unreliable either. You can't do that with GPT-2/GPT-3. Big picture: the human mind is a machine of sorts. It's not the same kind of machine as any form of machine learning we've developed so far.
- ben_w 6y ago
  > The answer isn't perfectly reliable, but it isn't completely unreliable either. How would we be able to tell how reliable it is in general? """The left brain of people whose hemispheres have been disconnected has been observed to invent explanations for body movement initiated by the opposing (right) hemisphere, perhaps based on the assumption that their actions are consciously willed.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Related_brain_disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Rela...
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The point is that humans have a basic ability to make specific coherent observations about themselves and the world. GPT can't do that except occasionally by accident in the middle of a muddle.
- _flux 6y ago
  In this case you could do it with GPT-x as well, if you have access to the learning material (so the OpenAI could do it when providing the model as a service): grep the learning data after-the-fact. No idea if it would be feasible to integrate this information directly into the model. With my limited understanding of neural networks, this seems difficult.

jakear 6y ago

It’s my understanding that under our current scientific understanding of the mind, we cannot have “free will”. Where would it come from? All science knows is that neurons receive inputs from sensors, mixes them together (with some quantum randomness sprinkled in), and eventually actuates muscles to produce outputs, exactly as GPT. Thus “free will” must come from some sort of faith. Either it was given to us by “God”, or we’re all part of some simulation and it exists on a level we don’t know about, or something else entirely too advanced for us to understand.

ben_w 6y ago
It depends what you mean by “free will” — the phrase “free will” is as ill-defined as “common sense” and “consciousness”. I take the view that ∀ x ∈ <free will definitions>, Has(x, humans) ≡ Has(x, AI)
- jakear 6y ago
  I agree with your claim. I also believe many to see “free will”/consciousness/etc as that certain je ne sais quoi that separates the human experience from that of computers: ∀ x ∈ <free will definitions>, Has(x, humans) ≡ ~Has(x, AI) For these to both be true, <free will definitions> becomes empty. Thus I argue we have none. Edit, or rather it’s meaningless to argue if we have any or not, as it cannot be defined.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Yes, that also fits my observations of such arguments.
  - simplify 6y ago
    > or rather it’s meaningless to argue if we have any or not, as it cannot be defined. This sums up my view too. Can't argue about it if you can't define it.
lolc 6y ago
Free will is a cultural concept, not a biological one. Consciousness may be driven by a biological machine, but development of our ego is influenced a lot by culture. Free will is faith in the sense that we learn the concept from our culture as our sense of self develops. The assumption of having it shapes our thinking such that we can say we actually have it. A person who took their inner voice as voice from the gods would have a restricted free will in this view.

hyperpape 6y ago

Of course it isn't how the human mind works. You can ask a person "did you come up with that sentence, or is it something you read?" And they can answer that question. The answer isn't perfectly reliable, but it isn't completely unreliable either. You can't do that with GPT-2/GPT-3. Big picture: the human mind is a machine of sorts. It's not the same kind of machine as any form of machine learning we've developed so far.

ben_w 6y ago
> The answer isn't perfectly reliable, but it isn't completely unreliable either. How would we be able to tell how reliable it is in general? """The left brain of people whose hemispheres have been disconnected has been observed to invent explanations for body movement initiated by the opposing (right) hemisphere, perhaps based on the assumption that their actions are consciously willed.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Related_brain_disorders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Rela...
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  The point is that humans have a basic ability to make specific coherent observations about themselves and the world. GPT can't do that except occasionally by accident in the middle of a muddle.
_flux 6y ago
In this case you could do it with GPT-x as well, if you have access to the learning material (so the OpenAI could do it when providing the model as a service): grep the learning data after-the-fact. No idea if it would be feasible to integrate this information directly into the model. With my limited understanding of neural networks, this seems difficult.