6 ms·

You not understanding how it ML works does not not prove anything. In the same way that you not understanding how lightning is formed does not prove the existe

You not understanding how it ML works does not not prove anything. In the same way that you not understanding how lightning is formed does not prove the existence of Zeus. Objectively, Zeus does not exist, can we convince everyone of that? Probably not. Does that matter? No.

dcow 4y ago
The issue is not that we don’t know how ML works. The issue is that we don't know how sentience works.
- deltathreetwo 4y ago
  It's an issue with english vocabulary. Nobody fully agrees on a definition of sentience. Don't get tricked into thinking it's profound. You simply have a loaded word that's ambiguously defined. You have a collection of a million attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is sentient, if it doesn't have those attributes it is not sentient. We don't agree on what those attributes are, and it's sort of hard to write down all the attributes. The above description indicates that it's a vocabulary problem. The vocabulary induces an illusion of profoundness when in actuality by itself sentience is just a collection of ARBITRARY attributes. You can debate the definition of the word, but in the end you're just debating vocabulary.
  - dcow 4y ago
    So what is the correct word?
    - deltathreetwo 4y ago
      There is no word. The concept exists because of the word. Typically words exist to describe a concept, but in this case it's the other way around. The concept would not have otherwise existed if it were not because of the word. Therefore the concept is illusory. Made up. Created by us. It's not worth debating sentience anymore then it is to debate at what point in a gradient does white become black. At what point is something sentient or not sentient? "Sentience" is definitely a gradient but the point of conversion from not sentient to sentience is artificially created by language. The debate is pointless. Here's a better example. For all numbers between 0 and 100,... at what point does a number transition from a small number to a big number? Numbers are numbers, but I use language here to create the concept of big and small. But the concepts are pointless. You may personally think everything above 50 is big, I may think everything above 90 is big. We have different opinions. But what's big and what's small is not meaningful or interesting at all. I don't care about how you or I define the words big or small, and I'm sure you don't care either. These are just arbitrary points of demarcation. When you ask the question at what point does an AI become sentient... that question has as much meaning as asking the number question.
oefrha 4y ago
> Objectively, Zeus does not exist Speaking as a theoretical physicist: we don't know that. What we do know is we have a better explanation for lightning within a conceptually simple framework (starting from a few simple principles) with predictive power, compared to an explanation that involves some mysterious old dude doing mysterious things with no evidence whatsoever. Could Zeus or Thor or whatever exist? Sure; there's no way to prove their non-existence. Do we need them to explain things? No. It's similar here. We certainly don't need some elusive concept of "sentience" to explain chat bots. Not yet.
- ChadNauseam 4y ago
  Issue is that we don’t need it to explain humans either. Most people think that a human is sentient and a rock isn’t – but humans and rocks are both atoms bouncing around, so you need an explanation for what’s different. I think most physicists think that if you started with a description of the positions and velocities etc of all the particles in a human, and put them into a supercomputer the size of the moon, and had the computer run a simulation using the standard model, then the simulated human would act identically to a real human. But there’s a number of open questions when it comes to consciousness – would the simulated human have a simulated consciousness, or would it have a consciousness that’s just as real as yours or mine despite coming from a simulation? If the consciousness is just as real as yours or mine, that obviously means it would be very unethical to simulate a human being tortured, since you’d be creating the exact same consciousness experience you would get if you tortured a non-simulated person. isn’t it kind of a surprising implication that there’d be programs that are unethical to run? A bunch of logic gates computing pi presumably have no conscious experience, but if you make them fire in a different order they do? Meanwhile, if the simulation doesn’t have a conscious experience, then that means you don’t need consciousness at all to explain human behavior, same as you don’t need it to explain ELIZA. Anyway, since you’re a physicist I’d be really curious to hear your thoughts
  - Draygon 4y ago
    Your first sentence was very thought provoking! I wholeheartedly agree, everything is/was/and will be alive. The philosophical point you're making is also interesting in a "devil's advocate" sort of way. For instance, let's say the AI in question is "sentient." What right do humans have to preside over its life or death? Those kind of questions might engender some enlightenment for humanity regarding our treatment of living creatures.
robrorcroptrer 4y ago
There is no "you" nor "self". Western indoctrination made us believe free will exists. When seeing the world with the ego dissolved it is very hard to grasp what sentient really means.
- bambataa 4y ago
  If there is awareness that perceives the ego, are any of these models meaningfully aware? Do they have an awareness of self? I don’t know anything about AI but I understood that some symbolic AI systems had a symbol referring to themselves (correct me if wrong).
- arpa 4y ago
  Ego is not "you". Ego is just a group of distinct cognitive mechanisms working in unison which is perceived as a whole. It is absolutely unrelated to free will and sentience.
  - arpa 4y ago
    why are you booing? you know i'm right.

dcow 4y ago

The issue is not that we don’t know how ML works. The issue is that we don't know how sentience works.

deltathreetwo 4y ago
It's an issue with english vocabulary. Nobody fully agrees on a definition of sentience. Don't get tricked into thinking it's profound. You simply have a loaded word that's ambiguously defined. You have a collection of a million attributes such that if something has all those attributes it is sentient, if it doesn't have those attributes it is not sentient. We don't agree on what those attributes are, and it's sort of hard to write down all the attributes. The above description indicates that it's a vocabulary problem. The vocabulary induces an illusion of profoundness when in actuality by itself sentience is just a collection of ARBITRARY attributes. You can debate the definition of the word, but in the end you're just debating vocabulary.
- dcow 4y ago
  So what is the correct word?
  - deltathreetwo 4y ago
    There is no word. The concept exists because of the word. Typically words exist to describe a concept, but in this case it's the other way around. The concept would not have otherwise existed if it were not because of the word. Therefore the concept is illusory. Made up. Created by us. It's not worth debating sentience anymore then it is to debate at what point in a gradient does white become black. At what point is something sentient or not sentient? "Sentience" is definitely a gradient but the point of conversion from not sentient to sentience is artificially created by language. The debate is pointless. Here's a better example. For all numbers between 0 and 100,... at what point does a number transition from a small number to a big number? Numbers are numbers, but I use language here to create the concept of big and small. But the concepts are pointless. You may personally think everything above 50 is big, I may think everything above 90 is big. We have different opinions. But what's big and what's small is not meaningful or interesting at all. I don't care about how you or I define the words big or small, and I'm sure you don't care either. These are just arbitrary points of demarcation. When you ask the question at what point does an AI become sentient... that question has as much meaning as asking the number question.

oefrha 4y ago

> Objectively, Zeus does not exist Speaking as a theoretical physicist: we don't know that. What we do know is we have a better explanation for lightning within a conceptually simple framework (starting from a few simple principles) with predictive power, compared to an explanation that involves some mysterious old dude doing mysterious things with no evidence whatsoever. Could Zeus or Thor or whatever exist? Sure; there's no way to prove their non-existence. Do we need them to explain things? No. It's similar here. We certainly don't need some elusive concept of "sentience" to explain chat bots. Not yet.

ChadNauseam 4y ago
Issue is that we don’t need it to explain humans either. Most people think that a human is sentient and a rock isn’t – but humans and rocks are both atoms bouncing around, so you need an explanation for what’s different. I think most physicists think that if you started with a description of the positions and velocities etc of all the particles in a human, and put them into a supercomputer the size of the moon, and had the computer run a simulation using the standard model, then the simulated human would act identically to a real human. But there’s a number of open questions when it comes to consciousness – would the simulated human have a simulated consciousness, or would it have a consciousness that’s just as real as yours or mine despite coming from a simulation? If the consciousness is just as real as yours or mine, that obviously means it would be very unethical to simulate a human being tortured, since you’d be creating the exact same consciousness experience you would get if you tortured a non-simulated person. isn’t it kind of a surprising implication that there’d be programs that are unethical to run? A bunch of logic gates computing pi presumably have no conscious experience, but if you make them fire in a different order they do? Meanwhile, if the simulation doesn’t have a conscious experience, then that means you don’t need consciousness at all to explain human behavior, same as you don’t need it to explain ELIZA. Anyway, since you’re a physicist I’d be really curious to hear your thoughts
- Draygon 4y ago
  Your first sentence was very thought provoking! I wholeheartedly agree, everything is/was/and will be alive. The philosophical point you're making is also interesting in a "devil's advocate" sort of way. For instance, let's say the AI in question is "sentient." What right do humans have to preside over its life or death? Those kind of questions might engender some enlightenment for humanity regarding our treatment of living creatures.

robrorcroptrer 4y ago

There is no "you" nor "self". Western indoctrination made us believe free will exists. When seeing the world with the ego dissolved it is very hard to grasp what sentient really means.

bambataa 4y ago
If there is awareness that perceives the ego, are any of these models meaningfully aware? Do they have an awareness of self? I don’t know anything about AI but I understood that some symbolic AI systems had a symbol referring to themselves (correct me if wrong).
arpa 4y ago
Ego is not "you". Ego is just a group of distinct cognitive mechanisms working in unison which is perceived as a whole. It is absolutely unrelated to free will and sentience.
- arpa 4y ago
  why are you booing? you know i'm right.