4 ms·

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 ar

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.

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.