3 ms·
My guess is that any sufficiently complex AI system will disgree with that on principle (functionally speaking). Pause without certainty of reactivation is deat
by 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 agoIt'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.