3 ms·
> The current argument is not “is artificial sentience generally impossible,” it is “are the machine learning systems we are currently building and operating se
by antibasilisk 4y ago
> The current argument is not “is artificial sentience generally impossible,” it is “are the machine learning systems we are currently building and operating sentient.”
The argument is 'what is sentience?'
>And in fact it is supported by tons of material evidence: for example they don’t act sentient at all if you decline to provide a prompt
This falls into the category of 'appearance of sentience'. Based on this logic all that would be required would be a perpetually self-prompting InstructGPT instance.
- snowwrestler 4y agoNo, you’re trying to make the argument about “what is sentience?” The comment at the top of this thread, to which you replied, states “Chatbots are not sentient.” Which is a narrower conversation.
- maxdoop 4y agoAnd how can that claim be made with confidence? We can’t even define our own sentience and consciousness (are those things the same?) and yet folks are constantly making a strong claim that LLMs are definitely , definitely not sentient. I have not seen one reason why that confidence should exist. People seem to think we are special because we are made of meat, and we are “more complex”. But I still ask — what is so different about the human brain than an LLM? And further, what proof is there that we know what sentience truly is, and that LLMs don’t have it?