4 ms·

> If I need much longer to run a marathon than an athlete, is that because my body is not doing the same things as the athlete, or just because it's doing all t

> If I need much longer to run a marathon than an athlete, is that because my body is not doing the same things as the athlete, or just because it's doing all the same things but doing them worse? If it's because you have to generate the concept of legs from observing other people run marathons before emitting a digital facismile of a race, I think we can be confident you're not doing the same thing as the other athletes. How do you learn what these things are? What do "consonance and dissonance" mean in terms of why they make you feel the way they do, and why can't an AI learn those things from examples? The qualia, that AI hopefully doesn't have but we can't tell because we don't have a test for that? Consonance and dissonance are physical properties of sound resonating in our ears, our emotional reactions involve observable physiological reactions like dopamine release and I think we can confidently reject the premise that a static model of relationships between wav files which instantaneously generates another wav file is doing the same thing Nobody is arguing musical fashions don't exist, because they do, they're arguing that AI unambiguously does not "listen" to music and a human performer unambiguously isn't even capable of outputting a mathematical translation of all the sound files they've absorbed, never mind solely doing that like a large model trained on other people's music [and text]

ben_w 3y ago
So, for you, it would change the answer if I put the AI into a robot (or simulated) body, and the limits of that body constrained the capabilities of the output? > Consonance and dissonance are physical properties of sound resonating in our ears, If a duff chord is played out of hours in a full morgue where no living person can hear it, is it still dissonant? > our emotional reactions involve observable physiological reactions like dopamine release and I think we can confidently reject the premise that a static model of relationships between wav files which instantaneously generates another wav file is doing the same thing I'm not so sure. Observable physiological reactions are the easy part, but they don't solve the "hard problem of consciousness"[0]. Various chemicals, including dopamine, modulate various neural activities and let our brains focus on things and learn in certain ways. Attention heads allow a big confusing pile of linear algebra to "focus" on particular things and learn in certain ways — what's that like on the inside? Is there even an inside for it to be like something? Nobody knows. I've only heard one suggestion for how to test it that isn't immediately obviously flawed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWf3szP6L80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWf3szP6L80 (I don't know if Ilya Sutskever came up with this test, but he's who I first heard promoting it). We're made of atoms. The chemistry of life led to us having feelings as the result of evolution, a process that has no intentionality. An AI may, or may not, reproduce that. In the absence of a test (without which we can't even determine the presence or absence of qualia in mammals with brains of similar complexity as SotA AI models), I'd be just as skeptical of anyone who says some AI does have it as anyone who says that AI doesn't have it. At the same time, given how we got it, I think our human brain chemistry is far less magical and more "mess that works" than our egos want to believe. I'm happy to call current AI "fast but stupid". Anything else, including future AI, I'm not so sure about. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- notahacker 3y ago
  > If a duff chord is played out of hours in a full morgue where no living person can hear it, is it still dissonant? Obviously, since we can't prove the morgue isn't consciously listening to it... :p We can't prove that Napster or a counterfeit CD isn't conscious to everyone's satisfaction either, but fortunately for copyright-holders, that isn't actually how the burden of proof on a "it's just like humans learning how to perform" defence works. Legal systems deny that things that probably are conscious are human-equivalent all the time anyway, that's why you can eat or sell a cow but you can't sue it or assign copyright to it. But even if the burden of proof was reversed, an argument that an NN consisting of static values stored on disk that outputs a discrete and (similarly) static sound file on demand before returning to being static without even a state update isn't the same thing as a human mind/body constituting long-running chemical processes performing music in continuous time seems.... pretty sound.

ben_w 3y ago

So, for you, it would change the answer if I put the AI into a robot (or simulated) body, and the limits of that body constrained the capabilities of the output? > Consonance and dissonance are physical properties of sound resonating in our ears, If a duff chord is played out of hours in a full morgue where no living person can hear it, is it still dissonant? > our emotional reactions involve observable physiological reactions like dopamine release and I think we can confidently reject the premise that a static model of relationships between wav files which instantaneously generates another wav file is doing the same thing I'm not so sure. Observable physiological reactions are the easy part, but they don't solve the "hard problem of consciousness"[0]. Various chemicals, including dopamine, modulate various neural activities and let our brains focus on things and learn in certain ways. Attention heads allow a big confusing pile of linear algebra to "focus" on particular things and learn in certain ways — what's that like on the inside? Is there even an inside for it to be like something? Nobody knows. I've only heard one suggestion for how to test it that isn't immediately obviously flawed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWf3szP6L80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWf3szP6L80 (I don't know if Ilya Sutskever came up with this test, but he's who I first heard promoting it). We're made of atoms. The chemistry of life led to us having feelings as the result of evolution, a process that has no intentionality. An AI may, or may not, reproduce that. In the absence of a test (without which we can't even determine the presence or absence of qualia in mammals with brains of similar complexity as SotA AI models), I'd be just as skeptical of anyone who says some AI does have it as anyone who says that AI doesn't have it. At the same time, given how we got it, I think our human brain chemistry is far less magical and more "mess that works" than our egos want to believe. I'm happy to call current AI "fast but stupid". Anything else, including future AI, I'm not so sure about. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

notahacker 3y ago
> If a duff chord is played out of hours in a full morgue where no living person can hear it, is it still dissonant? Obviously, since we can't prove the morgue isn't consciously listening to it... :p We can't prove that Napster or a counterfeit CD isn't conscious to everyone's satisfaction either, but fortunately for copyright-holders, that isn't actually how the burden of proof on a "it's just like humans learning how to perform" defence works. Legal systems deny that things that probably are conscious are human-equivalent all the time anyway, that's why you can eat or sell a cow but you can't sue it or assign copyright to it. But even if the burden of proof was reversed, an argument that an NN consisting of static values stored on disk that outputs a discrete and (similarly) static sound file on demand before returning to being static without even a state update isn't the same thing as a human mind/body constituting long-running chemical processes performing music in continuous time seems.... pretty sound.