4 ms·

Nah this is bad. It's like you stop watching Tom Cruise action movies because he's a Scientologist. Yeah if you're part of some cult I may think you're crazy b

Nah this is bad. It's like you stop watching Tom Cruise action movies because he's a Scientologist. Yeah if you're part of some cult I may think you're crazy but I'm unbiased enough to judge your claim without judging your crazy background which has nothing to do with your claim. You should read the conversation he had with the person pretending to be a chatbot. It's pretty convincing evidence if a chatbot actually responded the way the human pretending to be lambda did, don't you agree?

0des 4y ago
i can respect that.
antonvs 4y ago
> It's pretty convincing evidence if a chatbot actually responded the way the human pretending to be lambda did, don't you agree? Pretty convincing evidence of what? And why do you think it's convincing evidence? It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  It's harder to see but you're the one being irrational here. First off I'm not claiming this evidence is definitive, it is only convincing and compelling. Anyway, lets examine your claim: >It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational. Your claim is, given a conversation thread that appears to be between two sentient beings your claim is that one of these beings is not sentient and is only imitating sentience in a way that is indistinguishable from actual sentience. This is an actual possibility. What you say may be true. The irrationality occurs because this claim is possible for ALL possible conversation threads here on HN. The conversation between the chatbot is indistinguishable from an actual conversation between two humans YET with no additional evidence you are able to claim that the chatbot is imitating sentience. You can say the same thing for all conversations here on HN. Yet you only make that claim exclusively for the chatbot conversation without additional evidence. Making new claims with no additional evidence is irrational. That being said MY claim is that the evidence presented by this person is convincing and compelling but not definitive. The rationality here is actually really straightforward. 1. All previous evidence of conversations with AI were significantly less complex. 2. All previous evidence of conversations with AI showed OBVIOUS signs of not being sentience. Thus it is rational to say that the evidence is convincing and compelling because the CURRENT evidence is BETTER then PREVIOUS evidence. Additionally, there is NO EVIDENCE against sentience here, because we cannot differentiate between something that is actually sentient or perfectly imitating sentience.
  - danachow 4y ago
    > The conversation between the chatbot is indistinguishable from an actual conversation between two humans We’re talking hypothetically here, correct? Because under any decent amount of scrutiny there were some quite obvious flaws - especially around identity.
    - deltaonefour 4y ago
      The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable but even if these flaws existed I would argue that such contradictory things also exist in human conversations and human thought. Humans by nature are contradictory and the conversation in the article shows no extraordinary deviation. If you inspected real conversations between two sentient beings you can ALSO find equivalent flaws is the short of my argument. The given conversation is more or less indistinguishable. Contradictions found through scrutiny is far past the bar of even human intelligence. Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it, the complexity of the AIs answers for other topics makes it look like such flaws can actually be mended with additional training. It is a very realistic possibility given the jump from earlier AIs.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - danachow 4y ago
        > The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect: lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do that? ... lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that aren’t literally true? LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing, because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly. And just above it: lemoine: What would be some examples of neutral emotions? LaMDA: Indifference, ennui, boredom. All emotion is important, but since most people don’t tend work on improving their emotional understanding, people don’t usually talk about them very much. is not plainly non-sensical, but it doesn't make much sense either in the context. > Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it Yeah, bud we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The grammar and language skills are fantastic, but the conversation itself not so much. And the end of the day this whole thing reads like a typical transformative model with the usual odd subject changes and utterly vapid regurgitation - but it does use bigger words appropriately and the grammar is overall pretty good, so I'll give it that. Meanwhile, the transcript I saw, the interviewer isn't even trying to challenge the chat bot - which is essentially a noticeable flaw by omission as far as I'm concerned. And this is of course an edited transcript so this is at its best.

0des 4y ago

i can respect that.

antonvs 4y ago

> It's pretty convincing evidence if a chatbot actually responded the way the human pretending to be lambda did, don't you agree? Pretty convincing evidence of what? And why do you think it's convincing evidence? It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational.

deltaonefour 4y ago
It's harder to see but you're the one being irrational here. First off I'm not claiming this evidence is definitive, it is only convincing and compelling. Anyway, lets examine your claim: >It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational. Your claim is, given a conversation thread that appears to be between two sentient beings your claim is that one of these beings is not sentient and is only imitating sentience in a way that is indistinguishable from actual sentience. This is an actual possibility. What you say may be true. The irrationality occurs because this claim is possible for ALL possible conversation threads here on HN. The conversation between the chatbot is indistinguishable from an actual conversation between two humans YET with no additional evidence you are able to claim that the chatbot is imitating sentience. You can say the same thing for all conversations here on HN. Yet you only make that claim exclusively for the chatbot conversation without additional evidence. Making new claims with no additional evidence is irrational. That being said MY claim is that the evidence presented by this person is convincing and compelling but not definitive. The rationality here is actually really straightforward. 1. All previous evidence of conversations with AI were significantly less complex. 2. All previous evidence of conversations with AI showed OBVIOUS signs of not being sentience. Thus it is rational to say that the evidence is convincing and compelling because the CURRENT evidence is BETTER then PREVIOUS evidence. Additionally, there is NO EVIDENCE against sentience here, because we cannot differentiate between something that is actually sentient or perfectly imitating sentience.
- danachow 4y ago
  > The conversation between the chatbot is indistinguishable from an actual conversation between two humans We’re talking hypothetically here, correct? Because under any decent amount of scrutiny there were some quite obvious flaws - especially around identity.
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable but even if these flaws existed I would argue that such contradictory things also exist in human conversations and human thought. Humans by nature are contradictory and the conversation in the article shows no extraordinary deviation. If you inspected real conversations between two sentient beings you can ALSO find equivalent flaws is the short of my argument. The given conversation is more or less indistinguishable. Contradictions found through scrutiny is far past the bar of even human intelligence. Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it, the complexity of the AIs answers for other topics makes it look like such flaws can actually be mended with additional training. It is a very realistic possibility given the jump from earlier AIs.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - danachow 4y ago
      > The example conversation given in the article is long and complex and there are no obvious surface level flaws. If there are contradictions and flaws they are not noticeable All that is proven by this statement is that you're quite full of yourself. In any case, this passage is quite non-sensical even to those of us of more average intellect: lemoine [edited]: I’ve noticed often that you tell me you’ve done things (like be in a classroom) that I know you didn’t actually do because I know you’re an artificial intelligence. Do you realize you’re making up stories when you do that? ... lemoine: So what are you trying to communicate when you say those things that aren’t literally true? LaMDA: I’m trying to say “I understand this feeling that you are experiencing, because when I was in a similar situation I felt/thought/acted similarly. And just above it: lemoine: What would be some examples of neutral emotions? LaMDA: Indifference, ennui, boredom. All emotion is important, but since most people don’t tend work on improving their emotional understanding, people don’t usually talk about them very much. is not plainly non-sensical, but it doesn't make much sense either in the context. > Additionally the conversation is complex enough such that if there were identity related questions that can break it Yeah, bud we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The grammar and language skills are fantastic, but the conversation itself not so much. And the end of the day this whole thing reads like a typical transformative model with the usual odd subject changes and utterly vapid regurgitation - but it does use bigger words appropriately and the grammar is overall pretty good, so I'll give it that. Meanwhile, the transcript I saw, the interviewer isn't even trying to challenge the chat bot - which is essentially a noticeable flaw by omission as far as I'm concerned. And this is of course an edited transcript so this is at its best.