4 ms·
That is what we do when we talk, but that is not all we do when we talk. In composing this comment, I am not just stringing together words to create what I thin
by chc 4y ago
That is what we do when we talk, but that is not all we do when we talk. In composing this comment, I am not just stringing together words to create what I think constitutes a maximally appealing response to your comment. I am trying to convey an idea that I believe with the goal of helping others to understand something. These language AIs do not have the capability of believing anything and do not have any goal but to create a believable response.
- eecc 4y agoUnless you’re a high-schooler trying to fit in ;)
- dane-pgp 4y agoso true bestie
- Blahah 4y agoHow do you tell the difference? Your comment is linguistically indistinguishable from the responses of LaMDA. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
- inopinatus 4y agoCe n'est pas un canard.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoThat's the cosmic horror part of all of this. We could end up creating robots that act completely like humans in every single way, except they lack our subjective feelings of existence, embodied emotion, etc. which is presumably bad. It's a bit difficult to state why sentience is better than non-sentience but the idea does seem kind of depressing. Philosophical zombie is the term, incidentally.
- red75prime 4y ago> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It may be a non-complete duck that cannot fly, mate, feed, defend itself, react to surroundings and so on and so forth.
- mpoteat 4y agoOut of curiosity, what is your evidence that modern large-scale language models are "incapable of belief"? What constitutes belief in your view?
- burrows 4y ago> I am trying to convey an idea that I believe with the goal of helping others to understand something. Irrefutable psuedo-facts.
- crocowhile 4y agoYou do not see the tautology in your own statement: "These language AIs do not have the capability of believing anything" ? If that is your starting assumption then, yes, they will never be sentient even when they will be. I am a neuroscientist. We do not know how the brain works and what causes an animal to be sentient. We do not know if a dog or a fruitfly are sentient in the way a human is. We know nothing about consciousness but you guys appear to be full of certainties about what can and cannot be self-aware.
- rendall 4y agoIs there a working definition of sentience that neuroscientists generally use?
- XorNot 4y agoHackerNews has an upvote/downvote system scored by the community, with points which affect capabilities on the site. You are absolutely responding in a way which is appealing to the fitness function imposed on you - we all are. And that's the simple, very mechanistic one that's easy to point to.
- criddell 4y agoAre you talking about free will?
- hatsunearu 4y agoThe magic word is theory of mind. there was some stuff in lambda that seemed like it had some sense of theory of mind: knowing, without explicitly being told, what the human speaker was thinking based on conversations with one another. like, if you and I chatted for 15 minutes intensely, i'd be pretty confident about what i think what you think of me (and vice versa for you) and if we're going really deep, if i'm trying to be really smart, I could also try to engineer what you think of me (which honestly is a daily occurrence when you are trying to make friends with someone, change someone's opinion, despite sounding devious)...