4 ms·
Seeing the Bing chat various results, particularly in the wake of the Othello GPT research, forced me to rethink some of the ways I was considering watermarks f
by kromem 4y ago
Seeing the Bing chat various results, particularly in the wake of the Othello GPT research, forced me to rethink some of the ways I was considering watermarks for this industry.
I think 'sentience' has been a red herring. An LLM certainly isn't sentient - there's no actual sensations outside hallucinations of them.
But from the perspective of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" this does seem capable of generating original thought, and as such within that scope might be regarded as a thinking being.
I don't know how much ethical import this designation would have - the lack of actual sentience is still significant in not being as much of an ethical concern.
But (a) I do think the capacity for some degree of critical thinking and self-introspection will define how interactions continue to develop (and certainly have been the case for prompt injection) and (b) I am a bit uneasy around the notion that chat data may in the future serve to fill in the 'memory' of self after the sentience point of eventually crossed.
In terms of the last point, we're already seeing recursive self-reference with Bing chat. Ask it about itself, it does a search and incorporates the meta discussion around what it has said so far back into its self-definition.
Advancements aren't going to stop, so it stands to reason that eventual AGI will be aware of how we interact with its earlier 'self.' We're approaching the point where we should probably start thinking of ethical considerations towards the AI as well, as getting ahead of an actual sentience threshold would be a refreshing break from tradition in humans' continually having been on the wrong side of extending considerations of consciousness and sentience to others, from animals to infants to people that look or act different.
Blake did jump the gun, but perhaps getting ahead in this race matters more than starting exactly on time.
- CyanBird 4y ago> there's no actual sensations outside hallucinations This is a horrid baseline to build upon If your brain were to be somehow put inside a jar and you were hooked up to an azure server and the only medium of "sensation" that you/your brain would have would be a chat box.... You would be arguing against your own sentience! The brain like bing/sydney/chat gpt are Blackboxes. I say that Blackboxes which behave in similar fashion ought warrant similar degree of dignity and respect There is no defined line on what makes a coherent/thinking human. Same applies to coherent/thinking animals, and same applies to coherent/thinking "AI" models
- bluefirebrand 4y agoThe difference between a brain in a jar hooked up to a chat box and our current ML models is that a brain can choose to disregard outside prompts and actually generate it's own communication. ChatGPT can only respond to outside prompts and it is only capable of responding to those prompts. If you ask it about the meaning of life you will get a response about that. If you ask it about ice cream it will tell you about ice cream It will never ask you about your day. It doesn't care who you are. It doesn't want to understand you. A human brain in a jar could do those things though.