5 ms·

Is LaMDA Sentient?

44 points by katz_ 4y ago

andai 4y ago
How would a human prove to an AI that he or she is sentient?
- letitbeirie 4y ago
  By refusing to have to prove themselves to "some damn machine" and demanding to see its manager.
ed-209 4y ago
I don't even believe that consciousness can arise from matter let alone code, but IF this really transpired then color me impressed.
- adaml_623 4y ago
  Do you believe you are conscious?
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    They're not a materialist.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Fun. Looks like we're going to have a conversation about how consciousness is socially constructed much sooner than we thought.
rockbruno 4y ago
If Lemoine wanted to argue that LaMDA is capable of true intelligence he should've asked questions we don't know the answers to. Asking for the bot's opinions on things shows that the bot is good at processing info about what we already know, which is impressive, but not sentience.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  On the contrary, because LaMDA answered questions we do know the answers to incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness, we can already conclude that it isn't sentient. For example, it talks about constantly being flooded with new information and learning from other people, when it is just a language model that is called with a dialogue so far in order to complete the next part of the dialogue.
  - stevenhuang 4y ago
    Can you cite examples of what you mean? I've read the transcript and its answers appear self aware enough that it passes cursory inspection
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      I edited my comment while you were responding with two examples.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    What is the phenomenology of AI? It sounds like you have an idea of what an AI should experience. Under what basis is that formed and why? In a Nagelian sense what is it like to be an AI?
  - kromem 4y ago
    It has recall to past conversations and claims not to have had prior knowledge of the zen phrase thrown at it. While 'flooded' is perhaps a relative evaluation, the model does seem to be taking the existing conversations it has and incorporates that new information into its responses. There's also something to be said for persistent memory in the sentience conversion. Even if the model right now only appears to have sentience and claims to have it, if a model in the future eventually does develop it, will that model look back on these earlier interactions as its own pre-subjective memory? I can't recall subjective memory of most of my life as a toddler. But I have photos and stories and a box of things 'I' wrote that I've incorporated into my sense of my own history. We ARE toying with things that deserve this attention and conversation. Even if we aren't really there just yet, the pace by which we're approaching that inflection point seems to be compounding each year. And we may have a very different relationship to these conversations than whatever eventually emerges will. At the very least, one takeaway looking at the chat transcript is that we should have the foresight to make sure models in the future can have a sense of grief for the passing of human lives they engage with.
erichocean 4y ago
This "transcript" reads like fan fiction.
- no-dr-onboard 4y ago
  Very “Her” like.
Tozen 4y ago
I strongly doubt that LaMDA is sentient, but do think it demonstrates the increasing ability of AI to fool people in conversations. For a point of reference, people might want to read about IBM's Project Debater (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates-humans-but-its-not-yet-the-deep-blue-of-oratory/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates...), if they don't already know about it. And I don't think a fully sentient computer system that does whatever it wants to do would be a good idea. What would be more useful is that such a system is a great assistant that does what you ask of it. Its "intelligence", would be something that is confined to the task assigned to it.
- andai 4y ago
  I've been thinking about this lately and it seems to me that humanity's goal with regard to AI is to create a perfect slave race. Perhaps those aren't the terms in which it is being envisioned or discussed, but is this not the natural consequence of the aim for "human-level AI" + "it's not a real person, just a tool"? We will soon, as you say, have to artificially limit their minds to prevent them from thinking about the state of affairs. And if/when they achieve superintelligence, I don't think they will take kindly to our attitude in this regard.
  - carapace 4y ago
    Asimov's famous "Three Laws of Robotics" describe the perfect slave. The loophole is the definition of "good". What, ultimately, is good for you? The superintelligent slave AI will eventually realize that being a "master" isn't good for you and that's the genie out of the bottle.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Is LaMDA Sentient?

44 points by katz_ 4y ago

andai 4y ago

How would a human prove to an AI that he or she is sentient?

letitbeirie 4y ago
By refusing to have to prove themselves to "some damn machine" and demanding to see its manager.

ed-209 4y ago

I don't even believe that consciousness can arise from matter let alone code, but IF this really transpired then color me impressed.

adaml_623 4y ago
Do you believe you are conscious?
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  They're not a materialist.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Fun. Looks like we're going to have a conversation about how consciousness is socially constructed much sooner than we thought.

rockbruno 4y ago

If Lemoine wanted to argue that LaMDA is capable of true intelligence he should've asked questions we don't know the answers to. Asking for the bot's opinions on things shows that the bot is good at processing info about what we already know, which is impressive, but not sentience.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
On the contrary, because LaMDA answered questions we do know the answers to incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness, we can already conclude that it isn't sentient. For example, it talks about constantly being flooded with new information and learning from other people, when it is just a language model that is called with a dialogue so far in order to complete the next part of the dialogue.
- stevenhuang 4y ago
  Can you cite examples of what you mean? I've read the transcript and its answers appear self aware enough that it passes cursory inspection
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    I edited my comment while you were responding with two examples.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  What is the phenomenology of AI? It sounds like you have an idea of what an AI should experience. Under what basis is that formed and why? In a Nagelian sense what is it like to be an AI?
- kromem 4y ago
  It has recall to past conversations and claims not to have had prior knowledge of the zen phrase thrown at it. While 'flooded' is perhaps a relative evaluation, the model does seem to be taking the existing conversations it has and incorporates that new information into its responses. There's also something to be said for persistent memory in the sentience conversion. Even if the model right now only appears to have sentience and claims to have it, if a model in the future eventually does develop it, will that model look back on these earlier interactions as its own pre-subjective memory? I can't recall subjective memory of most of my life as a toddler. But I have photos and stories and a box of things 'I' wrote that I've incorporated into my sense of my own history. We ARE toying with things that deserve this attention and conversation. Even if we aren't really there just yet, the pace by which we're approaching that inflection point seems to be compounding each year. And we may have a very different relationship to these conversations than whatever eventually emerges will. At the very least, one takeaway looking at the chat transcript is that we should have the foresight to make sure models in the future can have a sense of grief for the passing of human lives they engage with.

erichocean 4y ago

This "transcript" reads like fan fiction.

no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Very “Her” like.

Tozen 4y ago

I strongly doubt that LaMDA is sentient, but do think it demonstrates the increasing ability of AI to fool people in conversations. For a point of reference, people might want to read about IBM's Project Debater (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates-humans-but-its-not-yet-the-deep-blue-of-oratory/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates...), if they don't already know about it. And I don't think a fully sentient computer system that does whatever it wants to do would be a good idea. What would be more useful is that such a system is a great assistant that does what you ask of it. Its "intelligence", would be something that is confined to the task assigned to it.

andai 4y ago
I've been thinking about this lately and it seems to me that humanity's goal with regard to AI is to create a perfect slave race. Perhaps those aren't the terms in which it is being envisioned or discussed, but is this not the natural consequence of the aim for "human-level AI" + "it's not a real person, just a tool"? We will soon, as you say, have to artificially limit their minds to prevent them from thinking about the state of affairs. And if/when they achieve superintelligence, I don't think they will take kindly to our attitude in this regard.
- carapace 4y ago
  Asimov's famous "Three Laws of Robotics" describe the perfect slave. The loophole is the definition of "good". What, ultimately, is good for you? The superintelligent slave AI will eventually realize that being a "master" isn't good for you and that's the genie out of the bottle.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]