5 ms·

Agreed. Even "AI" is a bit loaded; we had half a century of Terminator, Asimov, 2001, etc. We should call them by implementation; neural networks, transformers,

by nmilo 3y ago

Agreed. Even "AI" is a bit loaded; we had half a century of Terminator, Asimov, 2001, etc. We should call them by implementation; neural networks, transformers, language models, etc. The plus side is that it's harder to generalize statements about all three---there is very little to generalize in the first place---and that asking "is a transformer conscious" at least sounds more ridiculous than asking "is AI conscious."

BoiledCabbage 3y ago
But that misses the point, via the same old argument "Does a submarine swim"? Or the now less loaded "Does a plane fly". Neither generalizes very well w.r.t. how a fish or a bird does it. Nothing really generalizes between the natural version and the mechanical one. But it's also clear that it's irrelevant. Trying to define useful behavior by categorizing implementation, will only give you categories of implementation. It's clear by behavior that what a submarine does and what a bird does are both for all intents and purposes meeting the definition of what we'd want something to do in order to fly or swim, even though they is no commonality between them and the version in nature. So by your definition finding it ridiculous to ask "is a transformer conscious" is about as ridiculous as asking the very specific "does a plan flap it's wings"? The point is not to define it by it's implementation, but by what behaviors it exhibits. If in the future there is no way for me the exterior to distinguish a next gen LLM from a human, animal or other conscious being it becomes irrelevant if it's implemented with transformers. However, while I won't go down that path here, the argument goes even deeper as technically we would expect differences so even if it's not identical to a human it still can be conscious. Just like a dog is conscious but behaves differently than a person does.

by nmilo 3y ago

BoiledCabbage 3y ago

But that misses the point, via the same old argument "Does a submarine swim"? Or the now less loaded "Does a plane fly". Neither generalizes very well w.r.t. how a fish or a bird does it. Nothing really generalizes between the natural version and the mechanical one. But it's also clear that it's irrelevant. Trying to define useful behavior by categorizing implementation, will only give you categories of implementation. It's clear by behavior that what a submarine does and what a bird does are both for all intents and purposes meeting the definition of what we'd want something to do in order to fly or swim, even though they is no commonality between them and the version in nature. So by your definition finding it ridiculous to ask "is a transformer conscious" is about as ridiculous as asking the very specific "does a plan flap it's wings"? The point is not to define it by it's implementation, but by what behaviors it exhibits. If in the future there is no way for me the exterior to distinguish a next gen LLM from a human, animal or other conscious being it becomes irrelevant if it's implemented with transformers. However, while I won't go down that path here, the argument goes even deeper as technically we would expect differences so even if it's not identical to a human it still can be conscious. Just like a dog is conscious but behaves differently than a person does.