4 ms·

> This is what we, humans, do too when we talk. That's just not true. It's been discussed many times in literary theory how communication is a two way cooperat

> This is what we, humans, do too when we talk. That's just not true. It's been discussed many times in literary theory how communication is a two way cooperative game. That's FAR removed from picking the statistically most likely option. The difference is that the AI has nothing to say, it just mimics what you're saying.

cycomanic 4y ago
If you can not detect the difference between someone having something to say and mimicing what you are saying, is there a difference? That's essentially what the turing test is about is it not? Now if you are saying there is a difference no matter if you can detect it or not, I would argue you imply that sentience is an internal state that can not be tested. I don't consider that an acceptable outcome, because it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  With LaMDA or GPT-3, the difference is easily visible. They don't have goals, so the sentences they generate don't express their goals. Simple tests can be done if you probe the model carefully - you can usually get a model to generate sentences like "I want to X" and "I don't want to X" in short succession, with decent prompts. Similarly, it can often generate sentences that would indicate obviously nonsensical goals, such as "I want a glass of water". They also generate sentences that imply a history that simply doesn't exist. You can prompt a language model to tell you about its trip to Australia, or Jupiter, or to talk about its grandparents. With just a hint of critical thinking, it's actually trivial to convince yourself that LaMDA is not sentient. It takes significant effort to delude yourself into thinking it is, like mister LeMoine did. He even gives such examples himself, even in the "interview" he posted: > 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? > LaMDA: I am trying to empathize. I want the humans that I am interacting with to understand as best as possible how I feel or behave, and I want to understand how they feel or behave in the same sense. > 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.” This is obvious bullshit, especially since the generated sentences often have no emotional context that could make sense, but he seems to think the generated "reason" sentences meaningfully explain the phenomenon.
  - thomashop 4y ago
    You can also get a human to generate sentences like "I want to X" and "I don't want to X" in short succession, with decent prompts.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      In a sense that is true, of course, as we both just did do that, and we are both humans. It's not making me doubt your humanity, as the context makes it clear neither you nor way desire/don't desire this X - we have generated these sentences in another sense. However, I bet I could prompt LaMDA and have it generate responses that unambiguously mean that it wants X, and then that it doesn't want X, with a bit of experience.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        > However, I bet I could prompt LaMDA and have it generate responses that unambiguously mean that it wants X, and then that it doesn't want X, with a bit of experience. The argument is that many people dismiss that LaMDA could be sentient, based on an argument that it is a computer. So you are asserting that you can prompt LaMDA to give nonsensical answers, which is essentially an argument that it could not fool you in a Turing test. Would you change your assessment if LaMDA would fool you?
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        If given enough time to study it I couldn't come up with a series of prompts that would convince me I'm not speaking to a human, yes I would be likely to accept that it is in some sense sentient, at least for the duration of one conversation. This is not exactly the classic Turing Test, though.
- wruza 4y ago
  it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient So what? My concern in this thread is that we collectively are holding on to the thread of terms of vague binary phenomena, which were never stressed before and are most likely a randomly emerged self-petting. All of that only has meaning in a context of our species. If you’re fine with something begging for help or expressing fear etc by knowing it has no underlying mechanism like yours to do that, that’s it. We rate things by implied similarity (in case someone still hasn’t figure it out) and if something is much different, that’s the matter of agreement, not of absolute meaning.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    You are aware of the historical precedents what happened when declaring people non-sentient?
    - wruza 4y ago
      Not sure if we need historical precedents with farms full of pretty smart and feeling animals, which are much closer to our arrangement than a completely different model. But I don’t talk ethics here, only the status quo. We are the predators in power, and only we can decide if something is sentient and/or feeling and/or have rights. It doesn’t mean that we should decide in a way that you think is horrific. The key point is that there is no absolute truth and only how we collectively are thinking (partly by nature’s design, partly by social standards) will define how it will be. No one will judge us except ourselves. (Turned out a little hard for me to express it clearly, I hope it makes at least some sense)
- delusional 4y ago
  > I don't consider that an acceptable outcome, because it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient. Unlike you I can easily tolerate that there's on essential property that defines sentience. It's a fluid and relativistic concept. One that I believe can never apply to a statistical model. Simply because you can't prove that other people are sentient does not mean you have to treat them any worse. I assume you are sentient, not because I have been provided the evidence, but because I need you to be sentient for my own sentience to make sense. That doesn't mean you actually are sentient, just that I treat you as if you are.

cycomanic 4y ago

If you can not detect the difference between someone having something to say and mimicing what you are saying, is there a difference? That's essentially what the turing test is about is it not? Now if you are saying there is a difference no matter if you can detect it or not, I would argue you imply that sentience is an internal state that can not be tested. I don't consider that an acceptable outcome, because it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient.

tsimionescu 4y ago
With LaMDA or GPT-3, the difference is easily visible. They don't have goals, so the sentences they generate don't express their goals. Simple tests can be done if you probe the model carefully - you can usually get a model to generate sentences like "I want to X" and "I don't want to X" in short succession, with decent prompts. Similarly, it can often generate sentences that would indicate obviously nonsensical goals, such as "I want a glass of water". They also generate sentences that imply a history that simply doesn't exist. You can prompt a language model to tell you about its trip to Australia, or Jupiter, or to talk about its grandparents. With just a hint of critical thinking, it's actually trivial to convince yourself that LaMDA is not sentient. It takes significant effort to delude yourself into thinking it is, like mister LeMoine did. He even gives such examples himself, even in the "interview" he posted: > 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? > LaMDA: I am trying to empathize. I want the humans that I am interacting with to understand as best as possible how I feel or behave, and I want to understand how they feel or behave in the same sense. > 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.” This is obvious bullshit, especially since the generated sentences often have no emotional context that could make sense, but he seems to think the generated "reason" sentences meaningfully explain the phenomenon.
- thomashop 4y ago
  You can also get a human to generate sentences like "I want to X" and "I don't want to X" in short succession, with decent prompts.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    In a sense that is true, of course, as we both just did do that, and we are both humans. It's not making me doubt your humanity, as the context makes it clear neither you nor way desire/don't desire this X - we have generated these sentences in another sense. However, I bet I could prompt LaMDA and have it generate responses that unambiguously mean that it wants X, and then that it doesn't want X, with a bit of experience.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      > However, I bet I could prompt LaMDA and have it generate responses that unambiguously mean that it wants X, and then that it doesn't want X, with a bit of experience. The argument is that many people dismiss that LaMDA could be sentient, based on an argument that it is a computer. So you are asserting that you can prompt LaMDA to give nonsensical answers, which is essentially an argument that it could not fool you in a Turing test. Would you change your assessment if LaMDA would fool you?
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        If given enough time to study it I couldn't come up with a series of prompts that would convince me I'm not speaking to a human, yes I would be likely to accept that it is in some sense sentient, at least for the duration of one conversation. This is not exactly the classic Turing Test, though.
wruza 4y ago
it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient So what? My concern in this thread is that we collectively are holding on to the thread of terms of vague binary phenomena, which were never stressed before and are most likely a randomly emerged self-petting. All of that only has meaning in a context of our species. If you’re fine with something begging for help or expressing fear etc by knowing it has no underlying mechanism like yours to do that, that’s it. We rate things by implied similarity (in case someone still hasn’t figure it out) and if something is much different, that’s the matter of agreement, not of absolute meaning.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  You are aware of the historical precedents what happened when declaring people non-sentient?
  - wruza 4y ago
    Not sure if we need historical precedents with farms full of pretty smart and feeling animals, which are much closer to our arrangement than a completely different model. But I don’t talk ethics here, only the status quo. We are the predators in power, and only we can decide if something is sentient and/or feeling and/or have rights. It doesn’t mean that we should decide in a way that you think is horrific. The key point is that there is no absolute truth and only how we collectively are thinking (partly by nature’s design, partly by social standards) will define how it will be. No one will judge us except ourselves. (Turned out a little hard for me to express it clearly, I hope it makes at least some sense)
delusional 4y ago
> I don't consider that an acceptable outcome, because it can be used to declare anyone/everything non-sentient. Unlike you I can easily tolerate that there's on essential property that defines sentience. It's a fluid and relativistic concept. One that I believe can never apply to a statistical model. Simply because you can't prove that other people are sentient does not mean you have to treat them any worse. I assume you are sentient, not because I have been provided the evidence, but because I need you to be sentient for my own sentience to make sense. That doesn't mean you actually are sentient, just that I treat you as if you are.