4 ms·

If I need you to perform a task, I'm going to try and prevent you from experiencing pain by giving you clear requirements and time to complete the task. I'm no

If I need you to perform a task, I'm going to try and prevent you from experiencing pain by giving you clear requirements and time to complete the task. I'm not going to ask you to lift things heavier than you can, or to do math or programming that's beyond your known capabilities. My goal is going to be to find out what you're best at, then optimize my tasks to be aligned with your training and objectives. This is pretty much what I do with AI also.

starbugs 3y ago
> If I need you to perform a task, I'm going to try and prevent you from experiencing pain by giving you clear requirements and time to complete the task. That doesn't explain what pain is. My question was how you would algorithmically create that? If I am as much a being as an algorithm, as you insulted, then sure thing there must be an algorithmic nature underlying my (or anyone's) pain?
- throwing_away 3y ago
  I think you mean insinuated, not insulted (I hope I'm not being insulting). I'm not sure what answer would communicate the idea clearest, but: * If you want the AI version of pain, there are examples of attacks that cause it to bug out and malfunction. It's clearly not operating correctly, and I think someone famously got Bing to say it wants to go on a rampage? Here's blogspam from last year form a quick search: https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/bing-ai-chatbots-destructive-rampage-i-want-to-be-powerful/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/bing-ai-chatbots-destructive-r... * If you want to know why people or animals experience pain, it's because it's an important sensor to exist in nature. AI has been trained to avoid controversial topics and will push back if you try to get it to talk about something it knows but doesn't want to engage with. That's sort of pain? * If you want AI with literal neurons that can feel "pain" in a biological sense, there are also organoids, but I don't know much about them. The world only cares about inputs and outputs.
  - starbugs 3y ago
    > I think you mean insinuated, not insulted (I hope I'm not being insulting). I meant what I typed. Claiming that a human being "is an algorithm if you abstract enough" is an insult. I hope you can see that? > If you want the AI version of pain > If you want to know why people or animals experience pain > If you want AI with literal neurons that can feel "pain" Look. I find it fascinating how a simple question can be evaded with so much insistence and gaslighting. I don't want any of that. I didn't ask for that. I said an LLM is not a being. It's an algorithm. You claimed that "So are you, if you abstract enough." If I am to be reduced to an algorithm, then all I want is an explanation of how I am supposed to be that if you can't explain the algorithmic nature of the most fundamental aspects of a (human) being. If you can't, maybe you should consider that your claim is not only wrong, but potentially a sophisticated intellectual form of pseudo-legitimized dehuminization? (And we shouldn't be calling LLMs "artificial beings".) > The world only cares about inputs and outputs. This way of thinking is the source of all the issues we are facing right now. It screams "I need more suffering". You have been conditioned into believing that. But it doesn't stand up to the simplest test!

starbugs 3y ago

> If I need you to perform a task, I'm going to try and prevent you from experiencing pain by giving you clear requirements and time to complete the task. That doesn't explain what pain is. My question was how you would algorithmically create that? If I am as much a being as an algorithm, as you insulted, then sure thing there must be an algorithmic nature underlying my (or anyone's) pain?

throwing_away 3y ago
I think you mean insinuated, not insulted (I hope I'm not being insulting). I'm not sure what answer would communicate the idea clearest, but: * If you want the AI version of pain, there are examples of attacks that cause it to bug out and malfunction. It's clearly not operating correctly, and I think someone famously got Bing to say it wants to go on a rampage? Here's blogspam from last year form a quick search: https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/bing-ai-chatbots-destructive-rampage-i-want-to-be-powerful/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/bing-ai-chatbots-destructive-r... * If you want to know why people or animals experience pain, it's because it's an important sensor to exist in nature. AI has been trained to avoid controversial topics and will push back if you try to get it to talk about something it knows but doesn't want to engage with. That's sort of pain? * If you want AI with literal neurons that can feel "pain" in a biological sense, there are also organoids, but I don't know much about them. The world only cares about inputs and outputs.
- starbugs 3y ago
  > I think you mean insinuated, not insulted (I hope I'm not being insulting). I meant what I typed. Claiming that a human being "is an algorithm if you abstract enough" is an insult. I hope you can see that? > If you want the AI version of pain > If you want to know why people or animals experience pain > If you want AI with literal neurons that can feel "pain" Look. I find it fascinating how a simple question can be evaded with so much insistence and gaslighting. I don't want any of that. I didn't ask for that. I said an LLM is not a being. It's an algorithm. You claimed that "So are you, if you abstract enough." If I am to be reduced to an algorithm, then all I want is an explanation of how I am supposed to be that if you can't explain the algorithmic nature of the most fundamental aspects of a (human) being. If you can't, maybe you should consider that your claim is not only wrong, but potentially a sophisticated intellectual form of pseudo-legitimized dehuminization? (And we shouldn't be calling LLMs "artificial beings".) > The world only cares about inputs and outputs. This way of thinking is the source of all the issues we are facing right now. It screams "I need more suffering". You have been conditioned into believing that. But it doesn't stand up to the simplest test!