6 ms·

How are we going to detect the border between self-awareness and non self-awareness? Let's say, animal-like self awareness?

rthrfrd 3y ago
I find Daniel Dennett's framing of competency vs comprehension a good place to start. He did a nice talk at the RI on it some time ago[1]. A previous one overlaps with similar ground[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFoJQSd48c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFoJQSd48c [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX6awZq5Z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX6awZq5Z0
- ben_w 3y ago
  Although that would be really useful in some ways, I'm not sure[0] how that distinction helps with self-awareness in particular? [0] from reading a summary on the topic rather than watching the videos, I don't have time for 2.25 hours of video right now
  - rthrfrd 3y ago
    Fair, I post it as a starting point to establish ones own interpretation of self-awareness, so as not to wade into the philosophical rabbit hole of bringing my own definition. The reason I think it can be useful as that, is because I see competency and comprehension as requiring 2 very different levels of "self".
taberiand 3y ago
Given we know the AI isn't self-aware, if our current definition doesn't suffice we'll just have to keep refining the definition each time the model surpasses it until neither artificial nor human intelligence can.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Given we know the AI isn't self-aware That's presuming the conclusion. Part of the US culture war right now is whether or not embryos and foetuses count as people. I think it's obvious they don't, but am I right? And in the opposite direction, 160 years ago in the USA, or in my lifetime(!) in South Africa, you'd see people making those kinds of claims about people with too much melanin in their skin.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    I believe the person you're responding to was being sarcastic.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Now you say it, I see it too.
ben_w 3y ago
One problem is that "self-awareness" has so many different meanings, it's hard to know which one is being discussed. Any feedback loop has some dependency on its own prior state, but then the question is "what's awareness?", and "what's self?". Awareness is "knowledge or perception" says a random dictionary, and I think we can reasonably state that AI have "perception"… as do single-celled bacteria. What then is "knowledge"? My Philosophy A-level got as far as pointing out the problems with the definition "justified true belief" and then didn't give an adequate replacement. Me? I think "knowledge" is just the word for our own beliefs. It's like one of the Yes Minister quotes: """Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.""" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751832/characters/nm0288621 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751832/characters/nm0288621 I know, you believe, the AI is parroting its training set. The concept of self is a whole extra can of similarly wormy worms.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I got the impression that these philosophers were missing how the construction of knowledge (should ?) involve repetition, so one-offs coincidences should be given low probability ? (Ditto about "cheating" using tricksters, and even worse if they are godlike.)
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I think coincidence is be necessary to avoid the scenarios being "justified false beliefs". I think that merely assigning low probability gives you increasingly better standards for "justified", and then you need some kind of threshold to say if you're sufficiently justified. The example I was given was "I know there's a sheep in that field, I can see it" but you actually saw a shaggy dog, the sheep which was in the field was hiding behind a bush. Very much a coincidence scenario (like I said, I think they have to be), but also I don't think that fits your model for construction of knowledge involving repetition — instead, I would say that the statement should be "I see what looks like a sheep, therefore I have a justified belief there is a sheep in the field", but normal people wouldn't phrase it like that, and would find it marginally less weird to phrase it as "I see what looks like a sheep," (true) "therefore I know there is a sheep in the field" (false, but the point is they would say "I know" not "I've got a justified belief").

rthrfrd 3y ago

I find Daniel Dennett's framing of competency vs comprehension a good place to start. He did a nice talk at the RI on it some time ago[1]. A previous one overlaps with similar ground[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFoJQSd48c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFoJQSd48c [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX6awZq5Z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZX6awZq5Z0

ben_w 3y ago
Although that would be really useful in some ways, I'm not sure[0] how that distinction helps with self-awareness in particular? [0] from reading a summary on the topic rather than watching the videos, I don't have time for 2.25 hours of video right now
- rthrfrd 3y ago
  Fair, I post it as a starting point to establish ones own interpretation of self-awareness, so as not to wade into the philosophical rabbit hole of bringing my own definition. The reason I think it can be useful as that, is because I see competency and comprehension as requiring 2 very different levels of "self".

taberiand 3y ago

Given we know the AI isn't self-aware, if our current definition doesn't suffice we'll just have to keep refining the definition each time the model surpasses it until neither artificial nor human intelligence can.

ben_w 3y ago
> Given we know the AI isn't self-aware That's presuming the conclusion. Part of the US culture war right now is whether or not embryos and foetuses count as people. I think it's obvious they don't, but am I right? And in the opposite direction, 160 years ago in the USA, or in my lifetime(!) in South Africa, you'd see people making those kinds of claims about people with too much melanin in their skin.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  I believe the person you're responding to was being sarcastic.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Now you say it, I see it too.

ben_w 3y ago

One problem is that "self-awareness" has so many different meanings, it's hard to know which one is being discussed. Any feedback loop has some dependency on its own prior state, but then the question is "what's awareness?", and "what's self?". Awareness is "knowledge or perception" says a random dictionary, and I think we can reasonably state that AI have "perception"… as do single-celled bacteria. What then is "knowledge"? My Philosophy A-level got as far as pointing out the problems with the definition "justified true belief" and then didn't give an adequate replacement. Me? I think "knowledge" is just the word for our own beliefs. It's like one of the Yes Minister quotes: """Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.""" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751832/characters/nm0288621 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751832/characters/nm0288621 I know, you believe, the AI is parroting its training set. The concept of self is a whole extra can of similarly wormy worms.

BlueTemplar 3y ago
All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I got the impression that these philosophers were missing how the construction of knowledge (should ?) involve repetition, so one-offs coincidences should be given low probability ? (Ditto about "cheating" using tricksters, and even worse if they are godlike.)
- ben_w 3y ago
  > All the counter-examples to knowledge being justified true belief I have seen so far use coincidences. I think coincidence is be necessary to avoid the scenarios being "justified false beliefs". I think that merely assigning low probability gives you increasingly better standards for "justified", and then you need some kind of threshold to say if you're sufficiently justified. The example I was given was "I know there's a sheep in that field, I can see it" but you actually saw a shaggy dog, the sheep which was in the field was hiding behind a bush. Very much a coincidence scenario (like I said, I think they have to be), but also I don't think that fits your model for construction of knowledge involving repetition — instead, I would say that the statement should be "I see what looks like a sheep, therefore I have a justified belief there is a sheep in the field", but normal people wouldn't phrase it like that, and would find it marginally less weird to phrase it as "I see what looks like a sheep," (true) "therefore I know there is a sheep in the field" (false, but the point is they would say "I know" not "I've got a justified belief").