5 ms·

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. Anywa

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.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> 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. It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. > 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. It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible. That is not irrational, and it's not a contradiction with dismissing the AI. Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  >It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. Possible. But you would have to prove this because there's no evidence for what you say either. It's easy to get this evidence though. Just DO an actual probe of this chat bot and post the conversation. >It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible. Of course it's not worth the time. I'm just saying his claim is useless because it applies to every single conversation. It's like saying all words in the english language are composed of letters. The irrationality comes from the fact that such a statement is POINTLESS to say. >Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log. I never said it's good enough. I said it's convincing and compelling. Why? Because No previous chatbot could achieve this level of complexity. Maybe a better way to put it is... previous chat logs with AI actually had evidence against sentience. This one doesn't. The needle moves forward not because it's proof, but it is one of the first chat logs that doesn't display disproof. That is quite compelling.

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.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> 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. It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. > 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. It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible. That is not irrational, and it's not a contradiction with dismissing the AI. Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log.

deltaonefour 4y ago
>It's only indistinguishable to an outsider, because one side of the conversation has practiced puppeting the other and is looking for confirmation instead of probing for flaws. Possible. But you would have to prove this because there's no evidence for what you say either. It's easy to get this evidence though. Just DO an actual probe of this chat bot and post the conversation. >It's just not worth it to spend much time considering whether every single conversation thread is fake, but sure it's possible. Of course it's not worth the time. I'm just saying his claim is useless because it applies to every single conversation. It's like saying all words in the english language are composed of letters. The irrationality comes from the fact that such a statement is POINTLESS to say. >Neither kind of conversation proves there are two sentient actors to an observer. So "this isn't good enough" isn't a claim exclusively for the AI chat log. I never said it's good enough. I said it's convincing and compelling. Why? Because No previous chatbot could achieve this level of complexity. Maybe a better way to put it is... previous chat logs with AI actually had evidence against sentience. This one doesn't. The needle moves forward not because it's proof, but it is one of the first chat logs that doesn't display disproof. That is quite compelling.