6 ms·

It's stretching credulity beyond the usual exaggerated hype associated with AI. What we have now is semi-OK forecasting at scale, nothing more. We (as in the re

It's stretching credulity beyond the usual exaggerated hype associated with AI. What we have now is semi-OK forecasting at scale, nothing more. We (as in the researches, platform and technology) can get a system to select what looks to be a valid response to a host of stimuli, e.g., chess moves, patient diagnostics, vehicle driving etc. None of this "thinks for itself", nor is it remotely near to such levels of conscious self-awareness. I'm sick of this hype, it's been going on since the 1905's with hucksters promising robot household domestics, and all sorts of kooky weirdness that was swallowed up by the popular media.

csee 5y ago
The people who say it might be slightly conscious are just appealing to a functional, substrate-independent requirement for consciousness. I happen to agree with them that it's feasible and plausible. Let me ask you. If we invented an AGI that was as smart as us based on much larger nets (perhaps with one or two algorithmic tweaks on current approaches) trained on much more data, running on commodity hardware, would it be conscious? If yes, why can't our current nets be slightly conscious?
- new_guy 5y ago
  'slightly conscious' is just word salad, it doesn't actually mean anything.
  - csee 5y ago
    I am slightly conscious when I am extremely drunk and can barely think and feel, but yet still have some modicum of conscious experience. That's what it means. If you don't agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum, and instead think that something is either conscious or not, then simply replace the words 'slightly conscious' with 'conscious'.
    - tedunangst 5y ago
      But why would I want to put an extremely drunk computer in charge of making decisions?
      - csee 5y ago
        I was attempting to give an example of what a 'slightly conscious' state is to show that it isn't completely incoherent. Admittedly it was far from rigorous.
      - RHSman2 5y ago
        By far the best comment on here.
  - bondarchuk 5y ago
    You could say the same about "conscious" in general. There's not a single coherent definition of the word, not even in academic debates.
    - csee 5y ago
      There isn't, but the response to this lack of definition shouldn't be to simply terminate the discussion. We know it's probably a real thing because we experience it, and it's an extremely important open question whether an AGI on hardware will have "it" too. The answer to the question will have large ethical implications a few decades into the future. If they can suffer just like animals can, we really need to know that so we don't accidentally create a large amount of suffering. If they can't suffer, just like rocks probably can't, this doesn't have to be a concern of ours.
      - grumbel 5y ago
        The response to the lack of definition should be investigation into how that definition could look like, not arguing if we or something else has it or not. Without a definition and criteria to test you're never going to make progress.
        csee 5y ago
        Philosophers have been trying for decades to define it rigorously and have failed decisively. It really looks intractable at the moment. Given we are in this quagmire, I think it is ok to explore/discuss a bit further despite the shaky foundations of only having fuzzy definitions of "qualia" or "consciousness" to rely on.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        Quite a lot of the philosophical debate has been tied up in the effort to show that minds cannot be the result of purely physical processes or will never be explained as such, which does not tell us anything about what they are. We are not going to be able to say with any great precision what we are trying to say with the word 'consciousness' until we have more information. In lieu of that, what we can do is say what phenomena seem to be in need of explanations before we can compile a definition. At this point, opinions that human-level consciousness is either just more of what has been done so far, or cannot possibly be just that, are just opinions.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  There’s no evidence that neural nets can form an AGI so it’s a moot point. The AGI is an I’ll defined inflection point.
  - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
    I'd consider brains and other biological neutral systems as neutral nets. So to me there's pretty convincing evidence that neutral nets can form an AGI
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      Well you shouldn’t. They are not the same. Brains are not (ML) neural networks. Neural networks are just a mathematical approximation of one part of how the mind works
      - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
        I never ever said that the tiny approximation of subsets of our brain was enough for AGI. Just because we haven't found out the exact structures of the neural net in our brain and how to emulate it, it's still very much a neural net. It's just bigger and more complex than anything we can make our emulate yet.

csee 5y ago

The people who say it might be slightly conscious are just appealing to a functional, substrate-independent requirement for consciousness. I happen to agree with them that it's feasible and plausible. Let me ask you. If we invented an AGI that was as smart as us based on much larger nets (perhaps with one or two algorithmic tweaks on current approaches) trained on much more data, running on commodity hardware, would it be conscious? If yes, why can't our current nets be slightly conscious?

new_guy 5y ago
'slightly conscious' is just word salad, it doesn't actually mean anything.
- csee 5y ago
  I am slightly conscious when I am extremely drunk and can barely think and feel, but yet still have some modicum of conscious experience. That's what it means. If you don't agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum, and instead think that something is either conscious or not, then simply replace the words 'slightly conscious' with 'conscious'.
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    But why would I want to put an extremely drunk computer in charge of making decisions?
    - csee 5y ago
      I was attempting to give an example of what a 'slightly conscious' state is to show that it isn't completely incoherent. Admittedly it was far from rigorous.
    - RHSman2 5y ago
      By far the best comment on here.
- bondarchuk 5y ago
  You could say the same about "conscious" in general. There's not a single coherent definition of the word, not even in academic debates.
  - csee 5y ago
    There isn't, but the response to this lack of definition shouldn't be to simply terminate the discussion. We know it's probably a real thing because we experience it, and it's an extremely important open question whether an AGI on hardware will have "it" too. The answer to the question will have large ethical implications a few decades into the future. If they can suffer just like animals can, we really need to know that so we don't accidentally create a large amount of suffering. If they can't suffer, just like rocks probably can't, this doesn't have to be a concern of ours.
    - grumbel 5y ago
      The response to the lack of definition should be investigation into how that definition could look like, not arguing if we or something else has it or not. Without a definition and criteria to test you're never going to make progress.
      - csee 5y ago
        Philosophers have been trying for decades to define it rigorously and have failed decisively. It really looks intractable at the moment. Given we are in this quagmire, I think it is ok to explore/discuss a bit further despite the shaky foundations of only having fuzzy definitions of "qualia" or "consciousness" to rely on.
        mannykannot 5y ago
        Quite a lot of the philosophical debate has been tied up in the effort to show that minds cannot be the result of purely physical processes or will never be explained as such, which does not tell us anything about what they are. We are not going to be able to say with any great precision what we are trying to say with the word 'consciousness' until we have more information. In lieu of that, what we can do is say what phenomena seem to be in need of explanations before we can compile a definition. At this point, opinions that human-level consciousness is either just more of what has been done so far, or cannot possibly be just that, are just opinions.
oneoff786 5y ago
There’s no evidence that neural nets can form an AGI so it’s a moot point. The AGI is an I’ll defined inflection point.
- Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
  I'd consider brains and other biological neutral systems as neutral nets. So to me there's pretty convincing evidence that neutral nets can form an AGI
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Well you shouldn’t. They are not the same. Brains are not (ML) neural networks. Neural networks are just a mathematical approximation of one part of how the mind works
    - Galaxeblaffer 5y ago
      I never ever said that the tiny approximation of subsets of our brain was enough for AGI. Just because we haven't found out the exact structures of the neural net in our brain and how to emulate it, it's still very much a neural net. It's just bigger and more complex than anything we can make our emulate yet.