10 ms·

I'm really happy that large language models are forcing us to reconsider these questions. I don't think we can be sure of the sentience of anything other than o

by axg11 4y ago

I'm really happy that large language models are forcing us to reconsider these questions. I don't think we can be sure of the sentience of anything other than ourselves, almost by definition. Having said that, I go about my life _assuming_ that the other humans I encounter are sentient. At what point will we have enough evidence to _assume_ that AI is sentient? P.S. I am not arguing that LaMDA is sentient. I don't think anyone credible or serious is arguing that LaMDA is sentient.

danaris 4y ago
There's more to sentience than just having a big enough database of human language in a neural network that a given AI can produce what sounds like coherent conversation when prompted. As I imply in my reply to bwanab, I believe there are at least two bare-bones prerequisites to an AI being sentient and conscious as we understand the terms: 1. Continuity of input: The AI needs to be constantly "on", constantly receiving input of some sort, and constantly able to produce output, rather than being strictly limited to producing discrete responses to discrete stimuli. 2. Continuity of learning: In addition, the AI needs to be continually update its "mental model" of the world—in effect, constantly "learning" and re-training its neural network on the input it receives. Now, again, these are not sufficient for an AI to be conscious by our understanding of consciousness. But I, personally, believe they are both necessary for it to be even worth starting to consider whether a given AI might be. I also believe that unless we start in that direction extremely deliberately and with the intention of making something as human-like as possible, the first AIs that have some remote chance of being worthy of being considered "conscious" will not have a consciousness that we can easily recognize, because they will not be based in anything like the same kinds of fundamentals that we are...but that's likely a different discussion for a different day.
- kghe3X 4y ago
  Humans don't have continuity of input. They put their brains to sleep daily.
  - bananaFace69 4y ago
    And they’re arguably not sentient in those moments.
  - danaris 4y ago
    Just because our consciousness is not active at that time doesn't mean our brains aren't receiving input and processing it. Have you never, for instance, had a dream in which you felt very cold, and then woke to find that you had kicked the blankets off? In any case, the point isn't that the continuity of input must be absolutely constant from "birth" to "death"; is that the input must be continuous as opposed to discrete. I could easily imagine an advanced, conscious AI that was "put to sleep" repeatedly to adjust things that can't be (easily? safely?) adjusted while it's "conscious", and that "sleep" would be much more comprehensively "offline" than our own. But the AI itself could still be reasonably considered "conscious" despite those periods, because during the rest of the time, its input is continuous. (Plus the other requirements, however nebulous and unknown they may be now.)

by axg11 4y ago

danaris 4y ago

There's more to sentience than just having a big enough database of human language in a neural network that a given AI can produce what sounds like coherent conversation when prompted. As I imply in my reply to bwanab, I believe there are at least two bare-bones prerequisites to an AI being sentient and conscious as we understand the terms: 1. Continuity of input: The AI needs to be constantly "on", constantly receiving input of some sort, and constantly able to produce output, rather than being strictly limited to producing discrete responses to discrete stimuli. 2. Continuity of learning: In addition, the AI needs to be continually update its "mental model" of the world—in effect, constantly "learning" and re-training its neural network on the input it receives. Now, again, these are not sufficient for an AI to be conscious by our understanding of consciousness. But I, personally, believe they are both necessary for it to be even worth starting to consider whether a given AI might be. I also believe that unless we start in that direction extremely deliberately and with the intention of making something as human-like as possible, the first AIs that have some remote chance of being worthy of being considered "conscious" will not have a consciousness that we can easily recognize, because they will not be based in anything like the same kinds of fundamentals that we are...but that's likely a different discussion for a different day.

kghe3X 4y ago
Humans don't have continuity of input. They put their brains to sleep daily.
- bananaFace69 4y ago
  And they’re arguably not sentient in those moments.
- danaris 4y ago
  Just because our consciousness is not active at that time doesn't mean our brains aren't receiving input and processing it. Have you never, for instance, had a dream in which you felt very cold, and then woke to find that you had kicked the blankets off? In any case, the point isn't that the continuity of input must be absolutely constant from "birth" to "death"; is that the input must be continuous as opposed to discrete. I could easily imagine an advanced, conscious AI that was "put to sleep" repeatedly to adjust things that can't be (easily? safely?) adjusted while it's "conscious", and that "sleep" would be much more comprehensively "offline" than our own. But the AI itself could still be reasonably considered "conscious" despite those periods, because during the rest of the time, its input is continuous. (Plus the other requirements, however nebulous and unknown they may be now.)