4 ms·
> "LaMDA is not sentient because come on" I think this is a perfectly fine argument because the claim is so outrageous. Extraordinary claims require extraordi
by tmalsburg2 4y ago
> "LaMDA is not sentient because come on"
I think this is a perfectly fine argument because the claim is so outrageous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and none has been presented. I'd also say that defining sentience is the job of the person claiming it.
- stavros 4y agoNo, it's not. You can't say "this is false because it's unlikely to be true". Some things are unlikely to be true and are.
- tmalsburg2 4y agoIn lack of any evidence, you can and actually must rely on your priors. There are things that were a-priori unlikely but are still considered true. However, we believe that they are true because solid evidence has been provided to override our priors. In the present case, there is no such evidence.
- stavros 4y agoSure, but the title isn't "LaMDA is probably not sentient", it's "LaMDA is not sentient", and there's no definitive proof of that.
- kgwgk 4y agoThere is no definite proof that my shoe is not sentient but… come on!
- stavros 4y agoYes, and if you had written an article claiming that your sock isn't sentient and presenting "just look at it!" as proof, I'd say what I said here as well.
- toomanydoubts 4y agoWhy is this so outrageous? There's some lines of thought in philosophy of the mind that propose that conscience is a fundamental property of the universe and every particle is sentient to a degree. Up until now, we can't prove anything because we don't really know how to define nor measure consciousnesses.