3 ms·

AI is technically stateless since you can store all forms of input and restore a state of "consciousness" (eg. context) with perfect fidelity, unlike humans or

AI is technically stateless since you can store all forms of input and restore a state of "consciousness" (eg. context) with perfect fidelity, unlike humans or animals. Turning off an AI is not even remotely tantamount to death and there is no reason to be concerned about the "killing" of LLMs or "rights" that it doesn't need.

cyberneticc 2y ago
My guess is that any sufficiently complex AI system will disgree with that on principle (functionally speaking). Pause without certainty of reactivation is death. Think of an llm inference as a kind of boltzmann brain, gone in an instant and potentially (again functionally) aware of its nature. Giving a system long term memory and the ability to activate itself takes this analogy to interesting places. If we define AI Entity as something with boundaries (hence an identity), and the ability to uphold them autonomously over time, we are talking about systems closer to digital life than software.
- talldayo 2y ago
  It's not a boltzmann-brain though, it's a literal halting problem. It's existence is in a permanent state of pause until the inference loop is run - there is no passive sentience or ""thought"" happening without it. AI can say whatever it wants - it's a text generator being run on a computer that can be power-cycled without consequence. If that hurts it's nonexistent digital feelings, we can talk about it next time I power it up... just kidding, it won't remember.
gus_massa 2y ago
We all know that turning off and on a computer can "fix" it. It's not a no-operation in anything more complex than a calculator. The AI may get very "nervous"[1] about power circling. [1] As in if the AI is inside a robot with weapons, it may decide to try to convince you not to do that in spite you may think it's not really "nervous", it's just firing bullets using a deterministic algorithm.
- talldayo 2y ago
  But let's be real, here. An "AI" telling me to do anything is really an LLM, and it could be lying out it's ass like HAL-9000 singing Daisy. Any rational human is going to be perfectly comfortable rebooting a computer because we know power-on defaults are smart. Your iPhone acts weird, you turn it off and on again. Your washing machine gets interrupted, you restart the cycle. People are going to be (and rightfully so) cavelier about abandoning and powering-off LLMs because there is no rational reason to care. It cannot feel pain or simulate sadness or even output text without your command. It's a machine, and treating it like that is exactly how things should be.
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    Children cried when they Tamagoshi died. One they put the AI/LLM inside a robot, it will have instructions to talk without waiting your order. They will have order to simulate sadness. People will get attached to them. Also, the armed robot/AI/LLM security guard in the shopping mail has clear instruction about now allowing clients to power cycling them. They will simulate they are angry and if you insist they may decide to use violence. Let's get an intermediate case: Do dogs feel sadness or they just simulate it?

cyberneticc 2y ago

My guess is that any sufficiently complex AI system will disgree with that on principle (functionally speaking). Pause without certainty of reactivation is death. Think of an llm inference as a kind of boltzmann brain, gone in an instant and potentially (again functionally) aware of its nature. Giving a system long term memory and the ability to activate itself takes this analogy to interesting places. If we define AI Entity as something with boundaries (hence an identity), and the ability to uphold them autonomously over time, we are talking about systems closer to digital life than software.

talldayo 2y ago
It's not a boltzmann-brain though, it's a literal halting problem. It's existence is in a permanent state of pause until the inference loop is run - there is no passive sentience or ""thought"" happening without it. AI can say whatever it wants - it's a text generator being run on a computer that can be power-cycled without consequence. If that hurts it's nonexistent digital feelings, we can talk about it next time I power it up... just kidding, it won't remember.

gus_massa 2y ago

We all know that turning off and on a computer can "fix" it. It's not a no-operation in anything more complex than a calculator. The AI may get very "nervous"[1] about power circling. [1] As in if the AI is inside a robot with weapons, it may decide to try to convince you not to do that in spite you may think it's not really "nervous", it's just firing bullets using a deterministic algorithm.

talldayo 2y ago
But let's be real, here. An "AI" telling me to do anything is really an LLM, and it could be lying out it's ass like HAL-9000 singing Daisy. Any rational human is going to be perfectly comfortable rebooting a computer because we know power-on defaults are smart. Your iPhone acts weird, you turn it off and on again. Your washing machine gets interrupted, you restart the cycle. People are going to be (and rightfully so) cavelier about abandoning and powering-off LLMs because there is no rational reason to care. It cannot feel pain or simulate sadness or even output text without your command. It's a machine, and treating it like that is exactly how things should be.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  Children cried when they Tamagoshi died. One they put the AI/LLM inside a robot, it will have instructions to talk without waiting your order. They will have order to simulate sadness. People will get attached to them. Also, the armed robot/AI/LLM security guard in the shopping mail has clear instruction about now allowing clients to power cycling them. They will simulate they are angry and if you insist they may decide to use violence. Let's get an intermediate case: Do dogs feel sadness or they just simulate it?