6 ms·

With a simple computer, speaker, and accelerometer, you can build a device that says "ouch" when you drop it. Does it feel pain? My point is that there are goo

by slibhb 3y ago

With a simple computer, speaker, and accelerometer, you can build a device that says "ouch" when you drop it. Does it feel pain? My point is that there are good reasons to believe that a hypothetical LLM that can pass a Turing test is a philosophical zombie, i.e. it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious. Whether that distinction is important is another question. LLMs provide evidence that consciousness may not be necessary to create sophisticated AIs that can pass or exceed human performance.

naasking 3y ago
> it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious I'm curious how you know this. Certainly an LLM doesn't have human internal life, but to claim it has no internal life exceeds our state of knowledge on these topics. We simply lack a mechanistic model of qualia from which we can draw such conclusions.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  An LLM is math. It outputs text. Those things aren't alive, and both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial. Once you get that out of the way, sure, I guess it could be "alive" per the same loose definition that any electrical system can exist in an actuated state. It's software, though. I don't think it's profound or overly confident to say that we very clearly know these systems are inanimate and non-living.
  - bennyelv 3y ago
    A few counterpoints to offer... >An LLM is math Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality. >Those things aren't alive We don't have a universal definition of alive, or at least I'm not aware of one that isn't purely philosophical or artistic. We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence. >both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial Define artificial? We're made of exactly the same stuff. Complex chemical elements that were created from more basic ones in collapsing stars, arranged in a particular configuration with electricity flowing through it all and providing some kind of coordination. We're definitely a bit more "squishy", I'll give you that.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      A few responses in kind: > Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality. Most things are measurable, yea. LLMs in particular rely on math to understand language. Outside of a probabilistic context, LLMs do not understand words or sentences. That's... not really how you or I think. It's not how we understand animals or even plants to behave. Probibalism in nature gets you killed; deviation and unique fitness is what keeps the Darwinian wheel rolling. > We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence. Our speculation does a good enough job, I'd say. Sand and rocks aren't alive. Carbon isn't alive unless it is dictated by biological autonomy. Silicon chips aren't "alive" outside the sense that copper wires and your wall outlet has a lived experience. Software has a "lifecycle", but that's more used to describe human patterns of development instead of software behavior. When you roll all this up into one scenario, I see a pretty airtight argument that AI is not animate. If someone does prove that AI is a living organism, the implications would honestly be more dire outside of AI. It would overturn all modern understanding of software, which is why I figure it's not likely to be the case.
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    What about a hypothetical brain simulator? That would also be a software/hardware mash, with known mathematics. Would that be alive?
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Now that's a better question! My verdict is no, but I could see where people might disagree. This is a much harder hypothetical, though. Assuming you get everything right, you'd have a pretty powerful simulation at-hand. I think what you're describing is the difference between an artificial lung and a real-life cloned sheep embryo, though. An iron lung is only alive in the sense that it simulates a complex biological process with technology. It's damn impressive and very capable, but living respiration looks and behaves differently. Just simulating the desired input and output won't give you de-facto biology.
      - lordnacho 3y ago
        But a brain sim wouldn't be an artificial lung, would it? Much like an artificial heart wouldn't tell you about the state of the valves because it's an entirely different design that satisfies the same purpose. A simulation tries to do what the original does though. For instance a GameBoy emulator actually runs code in the way the original device did, right? Perhaps the test here is a bit like the Turing test. Could you tell whether the artificial device was being used, or the actual thing, apart from examining the device, of course: - An artificial lung doesn't make people breathe in quite the same way I suspect. - An artificial brain would give answers a bit like what ChatGPT can already do.
  - persnickety 3y ago
    This argument got long in the tooth, but suffice to say that you can analyze a human in exactly the same way, breaking one down to the basic physics and chemistry (and what does "artificial" mean, anyway?). Then there's the concept of panpsychism.
    - intended 3y ago
      I would very strongly urge people to actually work and build tools with LLMs. Its readily apparent after a point that the previous poster is correct, and that these are simply tools. They are impressive tools yes. But life they are not. At best, they are mimics.
      - persnickety 3y ago
        I can't help but notice that you backed up your assertions with nothing objective at all.
        intended 3y ago
        effort commensurate to the depth of the thread and effort of others. I have longer comments in my history, you can read those if you must. Besides, why wouldnt someone build things? This is HN.
      - naasking 3y ago
        > But life they are not. At best, they are mimics A mimicry of fire is not fire because fire is a reaction between matter. A mimicry of intelligence may well be intelligence, because intelligence is just information processing. We're not talking here about "life", but intelligence and "internal life", aka feelings, thoughts, etc. Edit: as for the argument that "LLMs are simply tools", it has been quite easy for our ancestors to also dehumanize other people and treat them as tools. That was a core justification of slavery. This is simply not a convincing argument that LLMs lack an internal life. People fool themselves all of the time.
        3y ago
  - naasking 3y ago
    Yes, an LLM is math. Particle physics is also math, and that makes up all of existence. Furthermore, I'm not sure why "artificiality" has any bearing on the question of whether something is alive, whatever that means. I'm also not even sure why you're talking about "alive" or "inanimate". From context it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc., not some ability to procreate, or even necessarily some continuity of existence.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc. So do you have any evidence of that existing, then? Because so far, it sounds like speculation. LLMs do not feel or think or experience anything, in the same way that particle physics is not inherently sentient. LLM architectures are not designed to resemble life, or even understand human language for the most part. It's understandable that someone would look at written text and say "it's a sign of life!", but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you. Next, you'll play the "but how are us humans alive?" card. Humans not only qualify as animate life, but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools. We are an imperfect computer, loaded with irreconcilable differences and improper conduct. We feel biological needs and immediate responses to stimuli. Our preconception of 'love' and 'hate' is not built on the words they're associated with, but the emotions they make us feel. Our lived experience is not limited to a preserved context, but rather our whole lives stretching across years of existence. Our thoughts are not dictated by what we write and say, and the way we present ourselves is not limited by the way we are finetuned. Human life is self-evident and precious. AI life is seemingly non-existent, and based on dubious non-technical claims.
      - naasking 3y ago
        > LLMs do not feel or think or experience anything, in the same way that particle physics is not inherently sentient Panpsychists would like a word. > but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you. I'm simply making clear that this is a statement of belief as opposed to a statement of fact. You believe that true life or true sentience has certain qualities that you believe LLMs are lacking, therefore you conclude that LLMs are not alive and not sentient. I'm simply saying that we don't know enough about sentience to turn such statements of belief into statements of fact (and I don't know what "life" is in such a context, so I won't touch that). > but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools Again, artificiality has nothing to do with whether something is alive, intelligent or sentient. Furthermore evolution has indeed shaped our brain into a purpose-built tool optimized to procreate.
  - robwwilliams 3y ago
    Why isn’t a brain “math” if you mean a system with which to process input streams to generate adaptive/useful output?
- slibhb 3y ago
  From that perspective, we can't say that a rock lacks an internal life. That seems silly to me. Perhaps we can't know but we can approach certainty.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > From that perspective, we can't say that a rock lacks an internal life That's what panpsychists believe. Regardless, this is a silly comparison. Show me a rock that can carry an intelligent conversation and then you might have a point.
    - slibhb 3y ago
      Using a rock as an example makes sense given the post I replied to. The argument that we lack a "mechanistic model of qualia" has nothing to do with behavior. That aside, we should be close to certain that LLMs don't have internal lives. That computer programs can mimic human behavior in some contexts is a tremendous discovery but it's no reason to assume an internal life. Conversely, many animals can't mimic human behavior but clearly have internal lives. The capacity for an internal life evolved over a billion odd years. It has something to do with our bodies and if we want to understand it, we should focus on biology and neuroscience. A machine with an internal life would need hardware designed or evolved for that purpose and modern computers lack that.
      - naasking 3y ago
        You cannot simultaneously believe that qualia evolved while also asserting that qualia has nothing to do with behaviour. In any case, the behaviour I'm referring to is clearly a proxy for complex change. A rock does not undergo complex changes, so unless you're a panpsychist, it's a pretty straightforward deduction that a rock doesn't have internal life. > but it's no reason to assume an internal life. I'm not asserting they have an internal life, the person I responded to was saying they have no internal life and I said they cannot rigorously justify such a claim.
        3y ago
IshKebab 3y ago
> Does it feel pain? In a sense, yes! But to understand that you will first have to precisely define "pain". Good luck.

by slibhb 3y ago

naasking 3y ago

> it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious I'm curious how you know this. Certainly an LLM doesn't have human internal life, but to claim it has no internal life exceeds our state of knowledge on these topics. We simply lack a mechanistic model of qualia from which we can draw such conclusions.

smoldesu 3y ago
An LLM is math. It outputs text. Those things aren't alive, and both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial. Once you get that out of the way, sure, I guess it could be "alive" per the same loose definition that any electrical system can exist in an actuated state. It's software, though. I don't think it's profound or overly confident to say that we very clearly know these systems are inanimate and non-living.
- bennyelv 3y ago
  A few counterpoints to offer... >An LLM is math Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality. >Those things aren't alive We don't have a universal definition of alive, or at least I'm not aware of one that isn't purely philosophical or artistic. We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence. >both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial Define artificial? We're made of exactly the same stuff. Complex chemical elements that were created from more basic ones in collapsing stars, arranged in a particular configuration with electricity flowing through it all and providing some kind of coordination. We're definitely a bit more "squishy", I'll give you that.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    A few responses in kind: > Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality. Most things are measurable, yea. LLMs in particular rely on math to understand language. Outside of a probabilistic context, LLMs do not understand words or sentences. That's... not really how you or I think. It's not how we understand animals or even plants to behave. Probibalism in nature gets you killed; deviation and unique fitness is what keeps the Darwinian wheel rolling. > We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence. Our speculation does a good enough job, I'd say. Sand and rocks aren't alive. Carbon isn't alive unless it is dictated by biological autonomy. Silicon chips aren't "alive" outside the sense that copper wires and your wall outlet has a lived experience. Software has a "lifecycle", but that's more used to describe human patterns of development instead of software behavior. When you roll all this up into one scenario, I see a pretty airtight argument that AI is not animate. If someone does prove that AI is a living organism, the implications would honestly be more dire outside of AI. It would overturn all modern understanding of software, which is why I figure it's not likely to be the case.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  What about a hypothetical brain simulator? That would also be a software/hardware mash, with known mathematics. Would that be alive?
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Now that's a better question! My verdict is no, but I could see where people might disagree. This is a much harder hypothetical, though. Assuming you get everything right, you'd have a pretty powerful simulation at-hand. I think what you're describing is the difference between an artificial lung and a real-life cloned sheep embryo, though. An iron lung is only alive in the sense that it simulates a complex biological process with technology. It's damn impressive and very capable, but living respiration looks and behaves differently. Just simulating the desired input and output won't give you de-facto biology.
    - lordnacho 3y ago
      But a brain sim wouldn't be an artificial lung, would it? Much like an artificial heart wouldn't tell you about the state of the valves because it's an entirely different design that satisfies the same purpose. A simulation tries to do what the original does though. For instance a GameBoy emulator actually runs code in the way the original device did, right? Perhaps the test here is a bit like the Turing test. Could you tell whether the artificial device was being used, or the actual thing, apart from examining the device, of course: - An artificial lung doesn't make people breathe in quite the same way I suspect. - An artificial brain would give answers a bit like what ChatGPT can already do.
- persnickety 3y ago
  This argument got long in the tooth, but suffice to say that you can analyze a human in exactly the same way, breaking one down to the basic physics and chemistry (and what does "artificial" mean, anyway?). Then there's the concept of panpsychism.
  - intended 3y ago
    I would very strongly urge people to actually work and build tools with LLMs. Its readily apparent after a point that the previous poster is correct, and that these are simply tools. They are impressive tools yes. But life they are not. At best, they are mimics.
    - persnickety 3y ago
      I can't help but notice that you backed up your assertions with nothing objective at all.
      - intended 3y ago
        effort commensurate to the depth of the thread and effort of others. I have longer comments in my history, you can read those if you must. Besides, why wouldnt someone build things? This is HN.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > But life they are not. At best, they are mimics A mimicry of fire is not fire because fire is a reaction between matter. A mimicry of intelligence may well be intelligence, because intelligence is just information processing. We're not talking here about "life", but intelligence and "internal life", aka feelings, thoughts, etc. Edit: as for the argument that "LLMs are simply tools", it has been quite easy for our ancestors to also dehumanize other people and treat them as tools. That was a core justification of slavery. This is simply not a convincing argument that LLMs lack an internal life. People fool themselves all of the time.
      - 3y ago
- naasking 3y ago
  Yes, an LLM is math. Particle physics is also math, and that makes up all of existence. Furthermore, I'm not sure why "artificiality" has any bearing on the question of whether something is alive, whatever that means. I'm also not even sure why you're talking about "alive" or "inanimate". From context it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc., not some ability to procreate, or even necessarily some continuity of existence.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc. So do you have any evidence of that existing, then? Because so far, it sounds like speculation. LLMs do not feel or think or experience anything, in the same way that particle physics is not inherently sentient. LLM architectures are not designed to resemble life, or even understand human language for the most part. It's understandable that someone would look at written text and say "it's a sign of life!", but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you. Next, you'll play the "but how are us humans alive?" card. Humans not only qualify as animate life, but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools. We are an imperfect computer, loaded with irreconcilable differences and improper conduct. We feel biological needs and immediate responses to stimuli. Our preconception of 'love' and 'hate' is not built on the words they're associated with, but the emotions they make us feel. Our lived experience is not limited to a preserved context, but rather our whole lives stretching across years of existence. Our thoughts are not dictated by what we write and say, and the way we present ourselves is not limited by the way we are finetuned. Human life is self-evident and precious. AI life is seemingly non-existent, and based on dubious non-technical claims.
    - naasking 3y ago
      > LLMs do not feel or think or experience anything, in the same way that particle physics is not inherently sentient Panpsychists would like a word. > but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you. I'm simply making clear that this is a statement of belief as opposed to a statement of fact. You believe that true life or true sentience has certain qualities that you believe LLMs are lacking, therefore you conclude that LLMs are not alive and not sentient. I'm simply saying that we don't know enough about sentience to turn such statements of belief into statements of fact (and I don't know what "life" is in such a context, so I won't touch that). > but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools Again, artificiality has nothing to do with whether something is alive, intelligent or sentient. Furthermore evolution has indeed shaped our brain into a purpose-built tool optimized to procreate.
- robwwilliams 3y ago
  Why isn’t a brain “math” if you mean a system with which to process input streams to generate adaptive/useful output?
slibhb 3y ago
From that perspective, we can't say that a rock lacks an internal life. That seems silly to me. Perhaps we can't know but we can approach certainty.
- naasking 3y ago
  > From that perspective, we can't say that a rock lacks an internal life That's what panpsychists believe. Regardless, this is a silly comparison. Show me a rock that can carry an intelligent conversation and then you might have a point.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    Using a rock as an example makes sense given the post I replied to. The argument that we lack a "mechanistic model of qualia" has nothing to do with behavior. That aside, we should be close to certain that LLMs don't have internal lives. That computer programs can mimic human behavior in some contexts is a tremendous discovery but it's no reason to assume an internal life. Conversely, many animals can't mimic human behavior but clearly have internal lives. The capacity for an internal life evolved over a billion odd years. It has something to do with our bodies and if we want to understand it, we should focus on biology and neuroscience. A machine with an internal life would need hardware designed or evolved for that purpose and modern computers lack that.
    - naasking 3y ago
      You cannot simultaneously believe that qualia evolved while also asserting that qualia has nothing to do with behaviour. In any case, the behaviour I'm referring to is clearly a proxy for complex change. A rock does not undergo complex changes, so unless you're a panpsychist, it's a pretty straightforward deduction that a rock doesn't have internal life. > but it's no reason to assume an internal life. I'm not asserting they have an internal life, the person I responded to was saying they have no internal life and I said they cannot rigorously justify such a claim.
      - 3y ago

IshKebab 3y ago

> Does it feel pain? In a sense, yes! But to understand that you will first have to precisely define "pain". Good luck.