6 ms·

While it can be customary to trivialise this, the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowle

While it can be customary to trivialise this, the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowledge". At this level a human can't claim to arbiter fact versus fiction. Fundamentally, no one can be sure what they experience is not some kind of simulation, or a dreamlike state beneath some more real "reality". As such, assigning hierarchy to such a foundation lacking in tangible proof is arbitrary. The point being, unless it's possible to conclusively and infallibly prove you are not hallucinating, you can't lay claim to having knowledge an AI is hallucinating, or not.

jnwatson 4y ago
That line of argument swiftly devolves into the case for solipsism. Generally, you may preface any Internet discussion with: first, assume there an independent reality that the author and the readers share. Also causation and the forward arrow of time is true. (It occurs to me that this sounds like prompt engineering.) In other words, you can never conclusively determine you’re not hallucinating (c.f. Hume), but let’s pretend we’re not for the sake of discussion.
- detrites 4y ago
  Unfortunately, it also swiftly devolves into the issue being discussed... It's not possible to prove whether or not a model can hallucinate or even think, based upon the premise that we have arbitrarily defined what constitutes "thought" (and so also "hallucination"). Can you prove an AI can or can't "think" in a way close enough to us that it could be considered to have basic ("human") rights? What if we built it out of biological material? And would that make any difference? Why? This leads to: how may we objectively prove that the exclusivity of biological "consciousness", as we've defined it, is correct? How may we prove either we or an AI can think, hallucinate, or "be conscious", when we are unable to objectively define the terms in a provable way? I think it may be impossible, and as I said - I don't think it's a trivial concern. We may soon be faced with an entity that demands we respect it, and we need to have worked through as much of that discussion as possible, prior.
  - jnwatson 4y ago
    If you’re a behaviorist, you don’t care if it thinks or the internal machinery at all.
wodenokoto 4y ago
> Fundamentally, no one can be sure what they experience is not some kind of simulation, or a dreamlike state beneath some more real "reality". To which I can only reply that I am not sure what I just read ...
mxkopy 4y ago
> the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowledge" This is not true. An intelligence should almost by definition be able to recognize patterns, i.e. when things are similar or are the same. This is why we know that 1+1=2, since 1+1 and 2 are just different names for the same thing. ChatGPT 'hallucinations' are a lack of this exact sort of consistency that makes it obvious that words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. I'm certain in my knowledge of 1+1=2, but even if I wasn't, I know that 1+1=2 aren't just some ASCII symbols; but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these.
- detrites 4y ago
  > a words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. An interesting argument, what does it mean for the disabled? Eg, if a human had a fully functioning brain, but from birth could not sense anything except text sent to their brain, which they could only respond to with text, would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? > but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these. Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why?
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    > would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? This is just a bad question. For one, we know that ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms. It has no proteins. It's not analogous. You're comparing meters to radians. I'm going to say no, a human without sensory organs is not just an LLM, not because of some complicated argument about how evolution imposes structure on the brain prior to any experiences it has, but because the premise is just bad. > Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why? This is not the same type of 'sure' as in "we're not sure if there's life out there." It's 'sure' as in "we're not sure monkeys can build a bridge on their own." Side note: when did it become standard rhetoric to say "you're agreeing with me now."? I'm obviously not agreeing with you. Do you think I need reminding? Or do you need reminding? It's made me somewhat interested in having an informative argument to actively disinterested in anything other than telling you how wrong you are. Can we keep it to reddit please?
kordlessagain 4y ago
> The point being, unless it's possible to conclusively and infallibly prove you are not hallucinating, you can't lay claim to having knowledge an AI is hallucinating, or not. This is very much true for more irrational (or less deterministic) "thoughts" in certain languages. However, if I asked you to write JavaScript or Python to "prove" your thoughts on the answer, it would be a simple matter of running the code you output on a state machine to determine the truths of the query. super-frog-of-adventure~> !calc 1+1 athletic-giraffe|> 2 super-frog-of-adventure~> !calc one plus one and output the answer athletic-giraffe|> Writing code. // filename: synth_calc_plus.js // version: 0.1.1 // description: simple addition calculation var num1 = 1; var num2 = 1; var answer = num1 + num2; Sidekick(answer + " (units)", ", "); athletic-giraffe|> 2 (units) super-frog-of-adventure~>

jnwatson 4y ago

That line of argument swiftly devolves into the case for solipsism. Generally, you may preface any Internet discussion with: first, assume there an independent reality that the author and the readers share. Also causation and the forward arrow of time is true. (It occurs to me that this sounds like prompt engineering.) In other words, you can never conclusively determine you’re not hallucinating (c.f. Hume), but let’s pretend we’re not for the sake of discussion.

detrites 4y ago
Unfortunately, it also swiftly devolves into the issue being discussed... It's not possible to prove whether or not a model can hallucinate or even think, based upon the premise that we have arbitrarily defined what constitutes "thought" (and so also "hallucination"). Can you prove an AI can or can't "think" in a way close enough to us that it could be considered to have basic ("human") rights? What if we built it out of biological material? And would that make any difference? Why? This leads to: how may we objectively prove that the exclusivity of biological "consciousness", as we've defined it, is correct? How may we prove either we or an AI can think, hallucinate, or "be conscious", when we are unable to objectively define the terms in a provable way? I think it may be impossible, and as I said - I don't think it's a trivial concern. We may soon be faced with an entity that demands we respect it, and we need to have worked through as much of that discussion as possible, prior.
- jnwatson 4y ago
  If you’re a behaviorist, you don’t care if it thinks or the internal machinery at all.

wodenokoto 4y ago

> Fundamentally, no one can be sure what they experience is not some kind of simulation, or a dreamlike state beneath some more real "reality". To which I can only reply that I am not sure what I just read ...

mxkopy 4y ago

> the reality is that no "intelligence" is sure if what it's saying may be correct or constitute any kind of "knowledge" This is not true. An intelligence should almost by definition be able to recognize patterns, i.e. when things are similar or are the same. This is why we know that 1+1=2, since 1+1 and 2 are just different names for the same thing. ChatGPT 'hallucinations' are a lack of this exact sort of consistency that makes it obvious that words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. I'm certain in my knowledge of 1+1=2, but even if I wasn't, I know that 1+1=2 aren't just some ASCII symbols; but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these.

detrites 4y ago
> a words are merely symbols and not representative of an actual thing. And how could it even know otherwise? ChatGPT is never exposed to things. An interesting argument, what does it mean for the disabled? Eg, if a human had a fully functioning brain, but from birth could not sense anything except text sent to their brain, which they could only respond to with text, would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? > but we're not entirely sure ChatGPT can be either of these. Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why?
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > would this mean they're equivalent to a language model? This is just a bad question. For one, we know that ChatGPT doesn't use neurological mechanisms. It has no proteins. It's not analogous. You're comparing meters to radians. I'm going to say no, a human without sensory organs is not just an LLM, not because of some complicated argument about how evolution imposes structure on the brain prior to any experiences it has, but because the premise is just bad. > Here you seem to agree with my point. We cannot be sure. Why? This is not the same type of 'sure' as in "we're not sure if there's life out there." It's 'sure' as in "we're not sure monkeys can build a bridge on their own." Side note: when did it become standard rhetoric to say "you're agreeing with me now."? I'm obviously not agreeing with you. Do you think I need reminding? Or do you need reminding? It's made me somewhat interested in having an informative argument to actively disinterested in anything other than telling you how wrong you are. Can we keep it to reddit please?

kordlessagain 4y ago

> The point being, unless it's possible to conclusively and infallibly prove you are not hallucinating, you can't lay claim to having knowledge an AI is hallucinating, or not. This is very much true for more irrational (or less deterministic) "thoughts" in certain languages. However, if I asked you to write JavaScript or Python to "prove" your thoughts on the answer, it would be a simple matter of running the code you output on a state machine to determine the truths of the query. super-frog-of-adventure~> !calc 1+1 athletic-giraffe|> 2 super-frog-of-adventure~> !calc one plus one and output the answer athletic-giraffe|> Writing code. // filename: synth_calc_plus.js // version: 0.1.1 // description: simple addition calculation var num1 = 1; var num2 = 1; var answer = num1 + num2; Sidekick(answer + " (units)", ", "); athletic-giraffe|> 2 (units) super-frog-of-adventure~>