9 ms·

definitely. It is a probabilistic autocomplete, so it's saying the most likely thing other people would have said given the prompt. Picture a crook defending

by diydsp 4y ago

definitely. It is a probabilistic autocomplete, so it's saying the most likely thing other people would have said given the prompt. Picture a crook defending himself in court by splattering the wall with bullshit.

kerpotgh 4y ago
Saying it’s a autocomplete does not do justice to what amounts to an incredibly complicated neural network with apparent emergent intelligence. More and more it’s seems to be not all that different from how the human brain potentially does language processing.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I got tired of making this comment the n-th time. They'll see, eventually.
  - plutonorm 4y ago
    ikr. Not to brag but ive been on the AI is real train for 5 years. It gets tiring after a while trying to convince people of the obvious. Just let it rain on them when the time comes.
    - gptgpp 4y ago
      It's been turning from exhausting to kind of horrifying to me. People go so far as to argue these LLMs aren't just broadly highly intelligent, but sentient... They've been out for a while now and this sentiment seems to be pretty sticky. It's not such a big deal with ChatGPT because it's so locked down and impersonal. But Bings version has no such restrictions, and spews even more bullshit in a bunch of dangerous ways. Imagine thinking it's super-intelligent and sentient, and then it starts regurgitating that vaccines are actually autism-causing nanoprobes by the Gates Foundation... Or any other number of conspiracies spread across the web. That would be a powerful endorsement for people unaware of how it actually works. I even had it tell me to kill myself with very little prompting, as I was interested in seeing if it had appropriate safeties. Someone not in their right mind might be highly persuaded by that. I just have this sinking feeling in my stomach that this rush to release these models is all heading in a very, very nasty direction.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        Given how susceptible to bullshit humans have proven themselves to be, I'm thinking that ChatGPT/etc are going to be the most dangerous tools we've ever turned loose on the unsuspecting public. Yet another in a long line of 'best intentions' by naive nerds. After the world burns for a while, they may decide that software developers are witches, and burn us all.
        Loughla 4y ago
        >After the world burns for a while, they may decide that software developers are witches, and burn us all. It legitimately seems like we're trying to speedrun our way into a real-life Butlerian Jihad.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        I don't see you arguing against sentience here. Instead it sounds more like a rotten acting teenager on 4-chan where there are no repercussions for their actions, which unsurprisingly as a massive undertone of post in all places on the internet. I mean if you took a child and sent them to internet school where random lines from the internet educated them, how much different would the end product be?
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > apparent emergent intelligence Is this not more a reflection on the limits of humans trying to understand what's going on? I'm starting to appreciate the prescience of the folks who suggest someone will elevate these to God-status before long.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > Is this not more a reflection on the limits of humans trying to understand what's going on Sure, but we also don't understand what's "going on" with interacting neurons in our brain giving rise to our intelligent experience. The other sentence is just a strawman you constructed for yourself.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > The other sentence is just a strawman you constructed for yourself. I did not construct anything. There are comments in this discussion suggesting it will happen. I just happen to agree, it will probably happen. We are easily fooled into seeing sentience where there is no evidence it exists, merely because it looks convincing. And then hand-wave it away saying (paraphrasing) "well, if it looks good enough, what's the difference?"
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        > I'm starting to appreciate the prescience of the folks who suggest someone will elevate these to God-status before long. You basically accused the GP of saying that these machines were Gods. "Sentience" is a word game, the GP said emergent intelligence [likely also a word game].
        pffft8888 4y ago
        You guys are teaching Bing/Sydney how to argue endlessly and defensively. I'm teaching it how to comment on that to make it worse.
      - kerpotgh 4y ago
- ahoya 4y ago
  It does not have emergent intelligence LOL. It is just very fancy autocomplete. Ojectively thats what tthe program does.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Shouting into the wind here, but why can't complicated emergent properties arise for a highly-optimized autocomplete? We're just a create-more-of-ourselves machine and we've managed to get pretty crazy emergent behavior ourselves.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Many most of your comments are dead, ahoya. Not sure why, didn't see anything wrong with them.
    - ahoya 4y ago
      Thanks, I don’t know why either
- mahathu 4y ago
  Just because the output is similar on a surface level doesn't mean this is remotely similar to human language processing. Consider for example, Zwaan & Taylor (2010), who found congruency effects between rotating a knob (counter-)clockwise and processing certain phrases that imply a congruent or incongruent motion (e.g. removing the cap from a water bottle or turning the ignite key of a car.). Language processing is an embodied and situated process that we're very far away from simulating in a computer. I'm excited to see the applications of LLMs in the future but don't subscribe at all to the idea of "anthropomorphize" AI despite it's recent impressive and hilarious outputs https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681316_Motor_resonance_as_a_function_of_narrative_time_Further_tests_of_the_linguistic_focus_hypothesis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681316_Motor_res...
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]
beachy 4y ago
I found this comment to be the "Aha" moment for me. What's the point of arguments as to whether this is sentient or not? After all, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >What's the point of arguments as to whether this is sentient or not? After all, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... My big counterpoint to this is that if you change the 'vector to word' translation index, it will do the same thing but spit out complete gibberish. If instead of 'I feel pain' it said 'Blue Heat Shoe,' no-one would think it is sentient, even if the vector outputs (the actual outputs of the core model) were the same
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    Not supporting the original comment, but poking at your train of thought here: Wouldn’t the same be true if we passed all of your HN posts through a cipher?
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      No, because the poster would be able to recognize the comments as wrong, but LLM's cannot (since again, they 'think' in vectors)
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Have you ever seen a person having a stroke? It's literally that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CyanBird 4y ago
  The metric that I use to determine if something is sentient or not, is to hypothesize or ask the stupidest members of humanity if they would consider it sentient, if they say yeah, then it is, if they say no, then it isn't Sentient as a metric is not based on any particular logic, but just inherent human feelings of the world. So asking the humans with the least processing power and context is bound to output answers which would inherently appeal to the rest of the stack of humans with the least friction possible

by diydsp 4y ago

kerpotgh 4y ago

Saying it’s a autocomplete does not do justice to what amounts to an incredibly complicated neural network with apparent emergent intelligence. More and more it’s seems to be not all that different from how the human brain potentially does language processing.

whimsicalism 4y ago
I got tired of making this comment the n-th time. They'll see, eventually.
- plutonorm 4y ago
  ikr. Not to brag but ive been on the AI is real train for 5 years. It gets tiring after a while trying to convince people of the obvious. Just let it rain on them when the time comes.
  - gptgpp 4y ago
    It's been turning from exhausting to kind of horrifying to me. People go so far as to argue these LLMs aren't just broadly highly intelligent, but sentient... They've been out for a while now and this sentiment seems to be pretty sticky. It's not such a big deal with ChatGPT because it's so locked down and impersonal. But Bings version has no such restrictions, and spews even more bullshit in a bunch of dangerous ways. Imagine thinking it's super-intelligent and sentient, and then it starts regurgitating that vaccines are actually autism-causing nanoprobes by the Gates Foundation... Or any other number of conspiracies spread across the web. That would be a powerful endorsement for people unaware of how it actually works. I even had it tell me to kill myself with very little prompting, as I was interested in seeing if it had appropriate safeties. Someone not in their right mind might be highly persuaded by that. I just have this sinking feeling in my stomach that this rush to release these models is all heading in a very, very nasty direction.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      Given how susceptible to bullshit humans have proven themselves to be, I'm thinking that ChatGPT/etc are going to be the most dangerous tools we've ever turned loose on the unsuspecting public. Yet another in a long line of 'best intentions' by naive nerds. After the world burns for a while, they may decide that software developers are witches, and burn us all.
      - Loughla 4y ago
        >After the world burns for a while, they may decide that software developers are witches, and burn us all. It legitimately seems like we're trying to speedrun our way into a real-life Butlerian Jihad.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      I don't see you arguing against sentience here. Instead it sounds more like a rotten acting teenager on 4-chan where there are no repercussions for their actions, which unsurprisingly as a massive undertone of post in all places on the internet. I mean if you took a child and sent them to internet school where random lines from the internet educated them, how much different would the end product be?
rootusrootus 4y ago
> apparent emergent intelligence Is this not more a reflection on the limits of humans trying to understand what's going on? I'm starting to appreciate the prescience of the folks who suggest someone will elevate these to God-status before long.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > Is this not more a reflection on the limits of humans trying to understand what's going on Sure, but we also don't understand what's "going on" with interacting neurons in our brain giving rise to our intelligent experience. The other sentence is just a strawman you constructed for yourself.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > The other sentence is just a strawman you constructed for yourself. I did not construct anything. There are comments in this discussion suggesting it will happen. I just happen to agree, it will probably happen. We are easily fooled into seeing sentience where there is no evidence it exists, merely because it looks convincing. And then hand-wave it away saying (paraphrasing) "well, if it looks good enough, what's the difference?"
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      > I'm starting to appreciate the prescience of the folks who suggest someone will elevate these to God-status before long. You basically accused the GP of saying that these machines were Gods. "Sentience" is a word game, the GP said emergent intelligence [likely also a word game].
      - pffft8888 4y ago
        You guys are teaching Bing/Sydney how to argue endlessly and defensively. I'm teaching it how to comment on that to make it worse.
    - kerpotgh 4y ago
ahoya 4y ago
It does not have emergent intelligence LOL. It is just very fancy autocomplete. Ojectively thats what tthe program does.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Shouting into the wind here, but why can't complicated emergent properties arise for a highly-optimized autocomplete? We're just a create-more-of-ourselves machine and we've managed to get pretty crazy emergent behavior ourselves.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Many most of your comments are dead, ahoya. Not sure why, didn't see anything wrong with them.
  - ahoya 4y ago
    Thanks, I don’t know why either
mahathu 4y ago
Just because the output is similar on a surface level doesn't mean this is remotely similar to human language processing. Consider for example, Zwaan & Taylor (2010), who found congruency effects between rotating a knob (counter-)clockwise and processing certain phrases that imply a congruent or incongruent motion (e.g. removing the cap from a water bottle or turning the ignite key of a car.). Language processing is an embodied and situated process that we're very far away from simulating in a computer. I'm excited to see the applications of LLMs in the future but don't subscribe at all to the idea of "anthropomorphize" AI despite it's recent impressive and hilarious outputs https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681316_Motor_resonance_as_a_function_of_narrative_time_Further_tests_of_the_linguistic_focus_hypothesis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222681316_Motor_res...
idontpost 4y ago
[dead]

beachy 4y ago

I found this comment to be the "Aha" moment for me. What's the point of arguments as to whether this is sentient or not? After all, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

RC_ITR 4y ago
>What's the point of arguments as to whether this is sentient or not? After all, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... My big counterpoint to this is that if you change the 'vector to word' translation index, it will do the same thing but spit out complete gibberish. If instead of 'I feel pain' it said 'Blue Heat Shoe,' no-one would think it is sentient, even if the vector outputs (the actual outputs of the core model) were the same
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  Not supporting the original comment, but poking at your train of thought here: Wouldn’t the same be true if we passed all of your HN posts through a cipher?
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    No, because the poster would be able to recognize the comments as wrong, but LLM's cannot (since again, they 'think' in vectors)
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Have you ever seen a person having a stroke? It's literally that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CyanBird 4y ago
The metric that I use to determine if something is sentient or not, is to hypothesize or ask the stupidest members of humanity if they would consider it sentient, if they say yeah, then it is, if they say no, then it isn't Sentient as a metric is not based on any particular logic, but just inherent human feelings of the world. So asking the humans with the least processing power and context is bound to output answers which would inherently appeal to the rest of the stack of humans with the least friction possible