4 ms·

> 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 f

> 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.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > I'm simply saying that we don't know enough about sentience to turn such statements of belief into statements of fact We do! We can look at rocks and very clearly define them as non-sentient. If you disagree with that, you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us. Animists and panpsychics be damned, you only need thermodynamics to prove that we are not the same. It's fine if you want to argue the uncertainty angle. I vehemently disagree with it though, and firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software, and software is not alive. Adding noise and 4.21gb of trained weights does not move the needle on that, for me.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us "Similarity to us" is not a comprehensive metric for sentience, that's the point. > firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software Yes, LLMs are software, so what? Whatever sentience is, it's an integral part of our information processing, and software does information processing. There is literally no reason to conclude that software cannot do the type of information processing that our brain does for sentience. Even if we agree that panpsychism is incorrect, I still do not agree that we know enough about sentience to claim that software cannot be sentient. I do not claim that LLMs are sentient, but they certainly could be, and the fact that they seem very intelligent, more intelligent than most humans in some ways, is a big red flag.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Fair enough. I just flat-out disagree; nothing I've seen suggests that software "could be" sentient. The burden of proof is yours, if you want to state that software has the potential for sentience.
      - naasking 3y ago
        The burden of proof has already been met. The Bekenstein Bound already tells us that any finite volume contains finite information, and any finite system can therefore be perfectly reproduced by a finite state machine. The human brain and body are finite volumes, therefore they can be perfectly replicated by a finite state machine. Unless you believe in some form of dualism, this reproduction necessarily includes sentience. Therefore, software can be sentient.

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.

smoldesu 3y ago
> I'm simply saying that we don't know enough about sentience to turn such statements of belief into statements of fact We do! We can look at rocks and very clearly define them as non-sentient. If you disagree with that, you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us. Animists and panpsychics be damned, you only need thermodynamics to prove that we are not the same. It's fine if you want to argue the uncertainty angle. I vehemently disagree with it though, and firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software, and software is not alive. Adding noise and 4.21gb of trained weights does not move the needle on that, for me.
- naasking 3y ago
  > you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us "Similarity to us" is not a comprehensive metric for sentience, that's the point. > firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software Yes, LLMs are software, so what? Whatever sentience is, it's an integral part of our information processing, and software does information processing. There is literally no reason to conclude that software cannot do the type of information processing that our brain does for sentience. Even if we agree that panpsychism is incorrect, I still do not agree that we know enough about sentience to claim that software cannot be sentient. I do not claim that LLMs are sentient, but they certainly could be, and the fact that they seem very intelligent, more intelligent than most humans in some ways, is a big red flag.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Fair enough. I just flat-out disagree; nothing I've seen suggests that software "could be" sentient. The burden of proof is yours, if you want to state that software has the potential for sentience.
    - naasking 3y ago
      The burden of proof has already been met. The Bekenstein Bound already tells us that any finite volume contains finite information, and any finite system can therefore be perfectly reproduced by a finite state machine. The human brain and body are finite volumes, therefore they can be perfectly replicated by a finite state machine. Unless you believe in some form of dualism, this reproduction necessarily includes sentience. Therefore, software can be sentient.