5 ms·

May I play devil's advocate? The fallacy of this paper granted, is it worth questioning our belief that there is more to intelligence than the "appearance of in

May I play devil's advocate? The fallacy of this paper granted, is it worth questioning our belief that there is more to intelligence than the "appearance of intelligence"? What if the lack of hallucination in human being is due to our self-imposed guard (hello, frontal cortex) that is developed via an evolutionary process (aka, biological reinforcement training)? To stretch the argument a bit further, what if hallucination is a feature, not a bug? At the risk of straying too far empirical science, how might we compare psychedelics-induced hallucinations in human with hallucinations in AI models?

p0pcult 4y ago
Have you ever read any Julian Jaynes? Check out "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
- arrow7000 4y ago
  Any specific part of it?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - unnah 4y ago
    You can just read this review instead of the book: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-consciousness-in-the-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-...
    - p0pcult 4y ago
      This does seem to be a pretty good summary, and also includes what seem to be the most major criticisms of the work.
HillRat 4y ago
To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is right and we need to radically upend our concept of sentience, probably via an eliminativist materialism that ends in at least epiphenomenalism if not full-bore illusionism, removing either free will or consciousness itself from our worldview. To be honest, I find that approach compelling if not comforting -- at a minimum, it implies that our consciousness is just along for the ride in a deterministic meat machine; at worst, it means that what we consider "sentience" is just an illusion of an illusion. It's entirely possible to me that eventually AI will reach a point where it'll falsify many of our assumptions about what "mind" is, even if I'm sure that LLMs don't, at a minimum, satisfy our folk conceptions of consciousness.
- naasking 4y ago
  > To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is right and we need to radically upend our concept of sentience We don't really have a mechanistic understanding of sentience, so I'm not sure there's much to overturn. This is why I'm so annoyed every time some "expert" claims that LaMDA or GPT are not sentient or not conscious or what have you. These are all vague concepts that lack mechanistic definitions that would let us make such definitive claims. That said, consciousness is almost certainly an illusion, and it will be a particular kind of information processing system with certain properties [1]. GPT and other LLMs may or may not qualify, time will tell. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119
- NemoNobody 4y ago
  I've thought a lot about free will and have determined that because what we choose is still what becomes real, even if all choices are pre-determined, a simple 1 out of 3 choice scenario allows for a fair degree of free will, albeit within a framework. It's like a game - all choices will almost always lead to the end of a story in a game, some games this feels very straightforward, others like we can do anything - none allow actual free will at all. Reality allows us a lot of free will - as allowed by the rules of course. Choice is significant. We are Watcher Chooser at least - even if it's illusion, it's an evolving illusion dependent on choices we make. Out of all the possible " illusions" we determine what becomes the "real" illusion that is reality. What I didn't do is less real than what I did do . Free will doesn't actually exist inside of Skyrim and yet there are things within Skyrim only 1% of Players do - reality is much greater than Skyrim. to;dr: We don't have free will - not really, it's not likely possible but what we have might as well be free will. It's got to be treated that way, we are not just along for a ride, as our ilusory choices create our illusion of reality.

p0pcult 4y ago

Have you ever read any Julian Jaynes? Check out "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

arrow7000 4y ago
Any specific part of it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- unnah 4y ago
  You can just read this review instead of the book: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-consciousness-in-the-breakdown-of-the-bicameral-mind/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/01/book-review-origin-of-...
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    This does seem to be a pretty good summary, and also includes what seem to be the most major criticisms of the work.

HillRat 4y ago

To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is right and we need to radically upend our concept of sentience, probably via an eliminativist materialism that ends in at least epiphenomenalism if not full-bore illusionism, removing either free will or consciousness itself from our worldview. To be honest, I find that approach compelling if not comforting -- at a minimum, it implies that our consciousness is just along for the ride in a deterministic meat machine; at worst, it means that what we consider "sentience" is just an illusion of an illusion. It's entirely possible to me that eventually AI will reach a point where it'll falsify many of our assumptions about what "mind" is, even if I'm sure that LLMs don't, at a minimum, satisfy our folk conceptions of consciousness.

naasking 4y ago
> To be honest, I think your question is the other side of the conceptual coin here -- either the article is wrong and GPT3 isn't "sentient," or the article is right and we need to radically upend our concept of sentience We don't really have a mechanistic understanding of sentience, so I'm not sure there's much to overturn. This is why I'm so annoyed every time some "expert" claims that LaMDA or GPT are not sentient or not conscious or what have you. These are all vague concepts that lack mechanistic definitions that would let us make such definitive claims. That said, consciousness is almost certainly an illusion, and it will be a particular kind of information processing system with certain properties [1]. GPT and other LLMs may or may not qualify, time will tell. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119
NemoNobody 4y ago
I've thought a lot about free will and have determined that because what we choose is still what becomes real, even if all choices are pre-determined, a simple 1 out of 3 choice scenario allows for a fair degree of free will, albeit within a framework. It's like a game - all choices will almost always lead to the end of a story in a game, some games this feels very straightforward, others like we can do anything - none allow actual free will at all. Reality allows us a lot of free will - as allowed by the rules of course. Choice is significant. We are Watcher Chooser at least - even if it's illusion, it's an evolving illusion dependent on choices we make. Out of all the possible " illusions" we determine what becomes the "real" illusion that is reality. What I didn't do is less real than what I did do . Free will doesn't actually exist inside of Skyrim and yet there are things within Skyrim only 1% of Players do - reality is much greater than Skyrim. to;dr: We don't have free will - not really, it's not likely possible but what we have might as well be free will. It's got to be treated that way, we are not just along for a ride, as our ilusory choices create our illusion of reality.