3 ms·
> Seems like a journalist is conscious if they do it, but it can’t possible be consciousness if LaMDA does it. That the output is the same proves nothing. The
by tarsinge 4y ago
> Seems like a journalist is conscious if they do it, but it can’t possible be consciousness if LaMDA does it.
That the output is the same proves nothing. The journalist has a subjective experience of themselves doing it, they "see" their thoughts. Like an AI can paint with red by using values without the experience of seeing the red.
- doctor_eval 4y agoHow do you know that the journalist has a subjective experience? How do you know your own subjective experience isn’t just your “bicameral mind” talking to itself? How do you know LaMDA doesn’t have a subjective experience? It’s just assumptions; nobody really knows what’s going on inside that neural network. The only way we can tell that someone else is conscious is because they tell us. So just saying “the output proves nothing” is incredibly weak, because the output is all we’ve got.
- tarsinge 4y agoI attribute a subjective experience to the journalist on the basis of similarity with me. No need for "the output", I would do that with someone who can't talk or write too. From where my own subjective experience come from and how can I prove it to you is irrelevant to the fact that I have it so I'm fine with being the bootstrap of the circular reasoning to give it to the rest of humanity. With that said I maintain that the output proves nothing, it's not because it's all we have that it's not useless. Also it's the only thing we have only with the hypothesis that consciousness is a side-effect of computation (the point of the article), but it could anything, like a property of matter, or electromagnetic fields, etc...