4 ms·

As I see it the AI schism is more about the debate between functionalism/computationalism and the idea that the chinese room thought experiment was an argument

As I see it the AI schism is more about the debate between functionalism/computationalism and the idea that the chinese room thought experiment was an argument for, "biological naturalism". There is a lot of effort dedicated to showing that AIs dont have some innate quality called "consciousnes" or "sentience" or what have you. There is not just a lot of effort to show that, but also to show that that is somehow a limitation to the capabilities of an "AI". Personally I think "consciousness" or "sentience" or whatever you want to call it, is really not that useful in making logical decisions or solving engineering problems. It is certainly a useful trait to humans but if nobody can tell that the person/program in the chinese room doesnt actually "understand" chinese then why does it matter? If it walks and talks like a duck you can probably use it for whatever ducks are useful for.

corethree 3y ago
Consciousness and sentience are just poorly defined vocabulary that delude people into thinking it's meaningful categorizations. There's just a bunch of traits related to intelligence and we categorize that if something has enough of those traits then it's "alive". But the words "consciousness" and "sentience" are so poorly defined that we can't pinpoint the formal grouping of what these traits actually are. So for a person to be conscious one can say the person must have feelings, another definition could be no emotions needed but the ability to reason is required... Etc.. etc. First up these definitions are just arbitrary categorizations. We each individually choose the traits that define the word consciousness, and second we don't even formalize the choice we sort leave the words impartially defined and all debates on whether LLMs are conscious are simply debating about this impartiality. It's a debate about a vocabulary issue for a word that isn't fully defined and people don't realize there's nothing profound or meaningful about the debate at all. These words are everywhere in the English language and causes us to debate certain concepts as if it's meaningful without us realizing we are just debating a vocabulary problem. Take for instance a car and a boat. These words are less fuzzy and more rigorously defined so debates on whether something is a car or a boat don't seem that profound. But the words are fuzzy enough that I can generate an example to help you see my point. Let's say I built something that can both drive and sail on the water. Is that thing a car or a boat? Is that question meaningful or is it just a categorization problem with inadequate vocabulary leaving me unable to specify exactly when an object classification transitions from boat to car? From this example it becomes evident that the debate is ludicrous that it's all an illusion. You are debating vocabulary. For words that are more fuzzy the same problem exists. But it's harder to see that it's just a vocabulary problem because the words are so fuzzy. Take for example, what is life? Is a bug alive? Is a plant? Or what is philosophy and what is not philosophy? Or what is good and what is evil? The discussion around all these issues are not profound. They are simply a discussion around vocabulary and categorization. We are too deluded by language to move past it. Many concepts exist as a gradient and we are simply trying to discretize this gradient into fixed categories and then spending an endless amount of time debating on where the lines of demarcation goes. So are LLMs conscious? It's loaded question. Let's not talk about vocabulary.
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  I don't agree. First off, just because definitions are fuzzy, doesn't make them arbitrary. And the boundaries between words may be fuzzy, but the consequences of these fuzzy definitions can have severe consequences. Race is a social construction, yet its definitions, fuzzy as they may be, have had huge consequences and shape the world we see today just by them existing. If we consider AI to be sentient, then that means we can leap and subscribe certain rights, which have legal consequences (For example, is AI "learning" fair use because it's learning like a human and is sentient). Profoundness or not, these are very important discussions to have, and are certainly meaningful to discuss, even if these terms can not be neatly defined.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Meaningful to discuss in the context of law, rules, rights and regulations. Not meaningful to discuss in a universal context. As in where did we come from? How did the universe form? What is the nature of reality? The question is not profound in this sense as it is just a categorization problem. From this perspective they are arbitrary. Of course categorization is very meaningful in other contexts like the ones I listed in my first paragraph. But you have to realize that you're getting into stuff like law, literature, poetry, ethics and things that are arbitrarily given meaning because we are human. Questions in this area are not profound nor meaningful from the "universal context" which is the frame of my point and this branching thread.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Meaningful to discuss in the context of law, rules, rights and regulations. Not meaningful to discuss in a universal context. As in where did we come from? How did the universe form? What is the nature of reality? The question is not profound in this sense as it is just a categorization problem. From this perspective they are arbitrary. Of course categorization is very meaningful in other contexts like the ones I listed in my first paragraph. But you have to realize that you're getting into stuff like law, literature, poetry, ethics and things that are arbitrarily given meaning because we are human. Questions in this area are not profound nor meaningful from the "universal context" which is the frame of my point and this branching thread.
kromem 3y ago
The sentience thing is such a red herring that gets too much time spent on it. The topic is a pariah in neuroscience even, but we are going to discuss it as nauseum for AI when there's barely any research on its mechanics in humans? The far more interesting topic is not if sentience is occurring (it's almost certainly not yet), but if it is being accurately modeled by a non-sentient agent. A LLM may not have a subjective experience of emotions, but it very likely is modeling some kind of emotional tracking from the input of massive amounts of emotional language similar to how Othello-GPT modeled an Othello board from the input of legal moves. To me, that's a far more interesting nuance to explore than the red herring binary of "sentient or not."

corethree 3y ago

Consciousness and sentience are just poorly defined vocabulary that delude people into thinking it's meaningful categorizations. There's just a bunch of traits related to intelligence and we categorize that if something has enough of those traits then it's "alive". But the words "consciousness" and "sentience" are so poorly defined that we can't pinpoint the formal grouping of what these traits actually are. So for a person to be conscious one can say the person must have feelings, another definition could be no emotions needed but the ability to reason is required... Etc.. etc. First up these definitions are just arbitrary categorizations. We each individually choose the traits that define the word consciousness, and second we don't even formalize the choice we sort leave the words impartially defined and all debates on whether LLMs are conscious are simply debating about this impartiality. It's a debate about a vocabulary issue for a word that isn't fully defined and people don't realize there's nothing profound or meaningful about the debate at all. These words are everywhere in the English language and causes us to debate certain concepts as if it's meaningful without us realizing we are just debating a vocabulary problem. Take for instance a car and a boat. These words are less fuzzy and more rigorously defined so debates on whether something is a car or a boat don't seem that profound. But the words are fuzzy enough that I can generate an example to help you see my point. Let's say I built something that can both drive and sail on the water. Is that thing a car or a boat? Is that question meaningful or is it just a categorization problem with inadequate vocabulary leaving me unable to specify exactly when an object classification transitions from boat to car? From this example it becomes evident that the debate is ludicrous that it's all an illusion. You are debating vocabulary. For words that are more fuzzy the same problem exists. But it's harder to see that it's just a vocabulary problem because the words are so fuzzy. Take for example, what is life? Is a bug alive? Is a plant? Or what is philosophy and what is not philosophy? Or what is good and what is evil? The discussion around all these issues are not profound. They are simply a discussion around vocabulary and categorization. We are too deluded by language to move past it. Many concepts exist as a gradient and we are simply trying to discretize this gradient into fixed categories and then spending an endless amount of time debating on where the lines of demarcation goes. So are LLMs conscious? It's loaded question. Let's not talk about vocabulary.

myaccountonhn 3y ago
I don't agree. First off, just because definitions are fuzzy, doesn't make them arbitrary. And the boundaries between words may be fuzzy, but the consequences of these fuzzy definitions can have severe consequences. Race is a social construction, yet its definitions, fuzzy as they may be, have had huge consequences and shape the world we see today just by them existing. If we consider AI to be sentient, then that means we can leap and subscribe certain rights, which have legal consequences (For example, is AI "learning" fair use because it's learning like a human and is sentient). Profoundness or not, these are very important discussions to have, and are certainly meaningful to discuss, even if these terms can not be neatly defined.
- corethree 3y ago
  Meaningful to discuss in the context of law, rules, rights and regulations. Not meaningful to discuss in a universal context. As in where did we come from? How did the universe form? What is the nature of reality? The question is not profound in this sense as it is just a categorization problem. From this perspective they are arbitrary. Of course categorization is very meaningful in other contexts like the ones I listed in my first paragraph. But you have to realize that you're getting into stuff like law, literature, poetry, ethics and things that are arbitrarily given meaning because we are human. Questions in this area are not profound nor meaningful from the "universal context" which is the frame of my point and this branching thread.
- corethree 3y ago
  Meaningful to discuss in the context of law, rules, rights and regulations. Not meaningful to discuss in a universal context. As in where did we come from? How did the universe form? What is the nature of reality? The question is not profound in this sense as it is just a categorization problem. From this perspective they are arbitrary. Of course categorization is very meaningful in other contexts like the ones I listed in my first paragraph. But you have to realize that you're getting into stuff like law, literature, poetry, ethics and things that are arbitrarily given meaning because we are human. Questions in this area are not profound nor meaningful from the "universal context" which is the frame of my point and this branching thread.

kromem 3y ago

The sentience thing is such a red herring that gets too much time spent on it. The topic is a pariah in neuroscience even, but we are going to discuss it as nauseum for AI when there's barely any research on its mechanics in humans? The far more interesting topic is not if sentience is occurring (it's almost certainly not yet), but if it is being accurately modeled by a non-sentient agent. A LLM may not have a subjective experience of emotions, but it very likely is modeling some kind of emotional tracking from the input of massive amounts of emotional language similar to how Othello-GPT modeled an Othello board from the input of legal moves. To me, that's a far more interesting nuance to explore than the red herring binary of "sentient or not."