4 ms·

Probably being super naive, but stuff like that always makes me wonder, is there something special about human consciousness, even? Perhaps it's just a sliding

by koe123 3y ago

Probably being super naive, but stuff like that always makes me wonder, is there something special about human consciousness, even? Perhaps it's just a sliding scale and we're just seemingly ahead of other specifies. We assert that consciousness exists and distinguishes us, but is that really the case?

mptest 3y ago
David chalmers doesn't think llm's are conscious yet but also doesn't think there's any real barriers for silicon to get to human consciousness[0] [0]https://youtu.be/j6cCXg-rjRo https://youtu.be/j6cCXg-rjRo He gives a few of the biggest reasons they're not conscious, and gives his thoughts on them as long term barriers. 1. biology necessary for life? He doesn't buy it 2. sensors/body - no embodiment akin to philosophers brain in a vat at best. "no agentive consciousness" he also doesn't buy this one, a it's solvable, b the brain in a vat might still have some limited form of consciousness 3.world models : stochastic parrot argument - he doesn't buy this either as being a valid "llm's will never be conscious" reason. he even thinks current llm's did have some world model if not a "full" one" 4. feed forward systems - stateless - lack long term memory Recurrent processing necessary? "Not all consciousness involves memory" 5. Unified agency - they're chameleons, actors, - are stable goals/unity necessary for consciousness? a "fixed" identity? from a quick scroll thru of the vid
ganzuul 3y ago
If you presuppose that consciousness follows intelligence you end up in a philosophy that you rewrite endlessly. If you suppose the inverse relationship where consciousness is pre-existent and an intelligence becomes self-aware as a result then you instead embark on a spiritual quest. The mind has the interesting property that as it cuts itself into pieces it hones itself sharper and sharper. This however is a painful way of life where joy and innocence are sacrificed for power and control.

by koe123 3y ago

mptest 3y ago

David chalmers doesn't think llm's are conscious yet but also doesn't think there's any real barriers for silicon to get to human consciousness[0] [0]https://youtu.be/j6cCXg-rjRo https://youtu.be/j6cCXg-rjRo He gives a few of the biggest reasons they're not conscious, and gives his thoughts on them as long term barriers. 1. biology necessary for life? He doesn't buy it 2. sensors/body - no embodiment akin to philosophers brain in a vat at best. "no agentive consciousness" he also doesn't buy this one, a it's solvable, b the brain in a vat might still have some limited form of consciousness 3.world models : stochastic parrot argument - he doesn't buy this either as being a valid "llm's will never be conscious" reason. he even thinks current llm's did have some world model if not a "full" one" 4. feed forward systems - stateless - lack long term memory Recurrent processing necessary? "Not all consciousness involves memory" 5. Unified agency - they're chameleons, actors, - are stable goals/unity necessary for consciousness? a "fixed" identity? from a quick scroll thru of the vid

ganzuul 3y ago

If you presuppose that consciousness follows intelligence you end up in a philosophy that you rewrite endlessly. If you suppose the inverse relationship where consciousness is pre-existent and an intelligence becomes self-aware as a result then you instead embark on a spiritual quest. The mind has the interesting property that as it cuts itself into pieces it hones itself sharper and sharper. This however is a painful way of life where joy and innocence are sacrificed for power and control.