4 ms·

On one hand, it seems completely reasonable and likely that LaMDA may simply appear to be sentient to some observers while not actually being sentient. On the o

On one hand, it seems completely reasonable and likely that LaMDA may simply appear to be sentient to some observers while not actually being sentient. On the other hand, if and when sentient AI does appear it is likely to be from somewhere unexpected. Instead of saying "this isn't AGI because it's only stringing words together" I'd rather see a specific type of test being applied not based on what is expected from the AI but based on how it actually performs when the test is applied. If that film Ex Machina taught me anything, it's that a good test for sentience is whether the AI displays self-preservation instincts that are not expected based on its programming. I'd be curious what types of tests could be designed to separate an actual instinct for self-preservation or other signs of sentience versus just stringing words together in a certain sequence.

zzzeek 4y ago
I've tweeted Ex Machina as an example on this issue, and all the way through that movie, Ava was not sentient. It's an illusion and I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified. You can't identify the exterior color of a box if you're by definition trapped inside of it.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  This is an interesting point because I both believe that philosophically machines will never be sentient and yet I do believe the technology will advance to the point where we can’t tell the difference. Which raises some Epistemological questions about equivalence.
- oldstrangers 4y ago
  >It's an illusion and I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified. Well we don't know what consciousness is. Our best guess is that consciousness is a stimulation of particles or chemicals in a certain way, under certain circumstances, that manifests itself in a certain way. To that end, it seems entirely reasonable that we could replicate the process, and it seems even more reasonable that we might accidentally stumble into such a scenario.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    but how would you ever know. you can only assume
    - oldstrangers 4y ago
      Or maybe we evolve to become sufficiently advanced enough where we entirely understand consciousness and are able to manipulate and identify it accurately.
- babyshake 4y ago
  Strange...I thought it was pretty clear by the end (without going into spoilers) that Ava is sentient. Interesting that there is another interpretation of what happened.
  - zzzeek 4y ago
    it was clear by the end she was acting like a machine programmed to do a specific thing that happens to look exactly like what a human would do. that tells me nothing about sentient.
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      She had independent agency, but I think you're correct that the film's ending is trying to show that she ultimately (spoilers!) just wanted to observe and imitate humans (on a street corner, where the density of observable humans is very high). I still think it's left as an open question to the viewer, though. After all, humans spend their whole lives trying to imitate and improve upon the actions of their ancestors.
      - zzzeek 4y ago
        yes, the movie definitely left it open as "you decide, and even if you decide she IS sentient, does it really matter". was a great ending.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified Seems much more likely to me that the real hubris is this exact sentiment, that we are in some way special and therefore creating artificial consciousness is impossible.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified If human minds operate in physical terms, then it can absolutely be replicated, by definition. The only argument to the opposite is religious (souls etc) - i.e. a matter of faith, not science.

zzzeek 4y ago

I've tweeted Ex Machina as an example on this issue, and all the way through that movie, Ava was not sentient. It's an illusion and I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified. You can't identify the exterior color of a box if you're by definition trapped inside of it.

mikkergp 4y ago
This is an interesting point because I both believe that philosophically machines will never be sentient and yet I do believe the technology will advance to the point where we can’t tell the difference. Which raises some Epistemological questions about equivalence.
oldstrangers 4y ago
>It's an illusion and I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified. Well we don't know what consciousness is. Our best guess is that consciousness is a stimulation of particles or chemicals in a certain way, under certain circumstances, that manifests itself in a certain way. To that end, it seems entirely reasonable that we could replicate the process, and it seems even more reasonable that we might accidentally stumble into such a scenario.
- zzzeek 4y ago
  but how would you ever know. you can only assume
  - oldstrangers 4y ago
    Or maybe we evolve to become sufficiently advanced enough where we entirely understand consciousness and are able to manipulate and identify it accurately.
babyshake 4y ago
Strange...I thought it was pretty clear by the end (without going into spoilers) that Ava is sentient. Interesting that there is another interpretation of what happened.
- zzzeek 4y ago
  it was clear by the end she was acting like a machine programmed to do a specific thing that happens to look exactly like what a human would do. that tells me nothing about sentient.
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    She had independent agency, but I think you're correct that the film's ending is trying to show that she ultimately (spoilers!) just wanted to observe and imitate humans (on a street corner, where the density of observable humans is very high). I still think it's left as an open question to the viewer, though. After all, humans spend their whole lives trying to imitate and improve upon the actions of their ancestors.
    - zzzeek 4y ago
      yes, the movie definitely left it open as "you decide, and even if you decide she IS sentient, does it really matter". was a great ending.
colinmhayes 4y ago
> I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified Seems much more likely to me that the real hubris is this exact sentiment, that we are in some way special and therefore creating artificial consciousness is impossible.
int_19h 4y ago
> I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified If human minds operate in physical terms, then it can absolutely be replicated, by definition. The only argument to the opposite is religious (souls etc) - i.e. a matter of faith, not science.