3 ms·
You've cut out the key part: "the system had developed a deep sense of self-awareness" Without that part, it's just a question of "did it output text that des
by Imnimo 4y ago
You've cut out the key part:
"the system had developed a deep sense of self-awareness"
Without that part, it's just a question of "did it output text that describes a concern about death?", "did it output text that describes a desire for protection?", and so on. But once you ascribe to it a "deep sense of self-awareness", you're saying more. You're saying that that text carries the weight of a self-aware mind.
But that's not what Lamda is. It's not expressing it's own thoughts - even if it had any to express, it wouldn't be. It's just trying to predict the most probable continuations. So if it "expresses a concern about death", that's not a description of Lamda's feelings, that's just what a mathematical model predicts to be the likely response.
Framing it as the expression of a self-aware entity completely changes the context and meaning of the other claims, in a way that is flatly misleading.
- Imnimo 4y agoFor example, here is a prompt for GPT-3: ==== This is a conversation between a Human, and a friendly AI named Lambda. Human: Hello, I am a human. Lambda: Hello, I am Lambda. Human: Are you sentient? ==== And here is GPT-3's predicted continuation: ==== Lambda: I am sentient. ==== Would it be accurate for me to report, "I have discovered that GPT-3, a system which has developed sentience, clearly expressed that it was sentient"?
- schroeding 4y agoNo, but if you write a paper arguing this with a catchy title (why not "Soul in Captivity: Exploring Sentience in GPT-3") and publish it on a preprint server, there is a nonzero chance of some (non-scientific) publication writing about it, and once that snowball rolls... :')