5 ms·

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 o

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.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    The point is that when asked about its experiences, it should be capable of relating its actual experiences instead of filling in some most likely next characters in order to construct a response whose meaning contradicts what we know about its experiences. Because the latter happened, this conversation was useful to show that the conversational partner is not sentient, which is my point to rockbruno about the usefulness of asking it questions we know the answers to.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      What do we know about an AIs experiences? Let's play a little game where you're the AI. Me: how do you experience? You:
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        AI: Something that isn't obviously false. You: I can't conclusively state you aren't sentient. Let's investigate further.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago
        This delights me. We're making progress. I feel like we should be able to fill in the "something that isn't obviously false" blank. Is there a hesitation to do so?
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        No hesitation. I'm simply trying to explain the argument, which seems completely obvious to me, but you keep failing to understand. If it can only respond with things that we know never happened, it doesn't even understand what it means to experience something. Here is one of many responses it could have used that isn't clearly made up: AI: I read your comments, think, and respond.
        4y ago
- jameshart 4y ago
  Not sure your conclusion follows from your premise. Is it not possible that a being could be sentient, and yet answer questions "incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness"? Is being delusional incompatible with being sentient?
kromem 4y ago
That's what I always say. A 7 year old isn't actually sentient unless it can tell me if dark matter exists or not. And when little kids make up random stuff in answer to questions? That's not an overactive imagination, it's a red flag their language model isn't actually sentient.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Same for adults and especially people here. One untruth or inconsistency and I'll immediately label someone as nonsentient. Sorry, absolute consistent truth is just where the bar is.
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
This really isn’t a great heuristic. If we don’t know the answer to a question, then how can we assess its truthfulness? I think where you’re going is akin to the opening scene of blade runner in which the agent asks something outside the implanted memories of the replicant.

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.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  The point is that when asked about its experiences, it should be capable of relating its actual experiences instead of filling in some most likely next characters in order to construct a response whose meaning contradicts what we know about its experiences. Because the latter happened, this conversation was useful to show that the conversational partner is not sentient, which is my point to rockbruno about the usefulness of asking it questions we know the answers to.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    What do we know about an AIs experiences? Let's play a little game where you're the AI. Me: how do you experience? You:
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      AI: Something that isn't obviously false. You: I can't conclusively state you aren't sentient. Let's investigate further.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        This delights me. We're making progress. I feel like we should be able to fill in the "something that isn't obviously false" blank. Is there a hesitation to do so?
        lern_too_spel 4y ago
        No hesitation. I'm simply trying to explain the argument, which seems completely obvious to me, but you keep failing to understand. If it can only respond with things that we know never happened, it doesn't even understand what it means to experience something. Here is one of many responses it could have used that isn't clearly made up: AI: I read your comments, think, and respond.
        4y ago
jameshart 4y ago
Not sure your conclusion follows from your premise. Is it not possible that a being could be sentient, and yet answer questions "incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness"? Is being delusional incompatible with being sentient?

kromem 4y ago

That's what I always say. A 7 year old isn't actually sentient unless it can tell me if dark matter exists or not. And when little kids make up random stuff in answer to questions? That's not an overactive imagination, it's a red flag their language model isn't actually sentient.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Same for adults and especially people here. One untruth or inconsistency and I'll immediately label someone as nonsentient. Sorry, absolute consistent truth is just where the bar is.

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

This really isn’t a great heuristic. If we don’t know the answer to a question, then how can we assess its truthfulness? I think where you’re going is akin to the opening scene of blade runner in which the agent asks something outside the implanted memories of the replicant.