3 ms·

Simulating a brain would mean that reason, the ability to discern good from bad, is a statistical process. All scientific evidence so far shows that this is not

Simulating a brain would mean that reason, the ability to discern good from bad, is a statistical process. All scientific evidence so far shows that this is not the case, since AIs do not have the ability to "understand" what they're doing, their input data has to be classified first to be usable to the machine. Especially the problem of model collapse shows this, when an AI is trained on the output of another AI, trained on the output of another AI, it will eventually produce garbage, why? Because it doesn't "understand" what it's doing, it just matches patterns. The only way to correct it is with hundreds or even thousands of employees that give meaning to the data to guide the model. Consciousness presumes the ability of making conscious decisions, especially the ability to have introspection and more importantly, free will (otherwise the decision would not be conscious, but robotic regurgitation), to reflect and to judge on the "goodness" or "badness" of decisions, the "morality". Since it is evident that humans do not always do the logical best thing (look around you how many people make garbage decisions), a machine can never function like a human can, it can never have opinions (that aren't pre-trained input), as it makes no distinction between good and bad without external input. A machine has no free will, which is a requirement for consciousness. At best, it can be a good faksimile. It can be useful, yes, but it cannot make conscious decisions. The created cannot be bigger than the creator in terms of informational content, otherwise you'd create a supernatural "ghost" in the machine. I hope I don't have to explain why I consider creating ghosts unachievable. Even with photo or video AIs, there is no "new" content, just rehashed old content which is a subset of the trained data (why AI-generated photos often have this kind of "smooth" look to them). The only reason the output of AI has any meaning to us is because we give it meaning, not the computer. So, before wasting millions of compute hours on this project, I'd first try to hire and indebted millennial who will be glad to finally put his philosophy degree to good use.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Consciouness of the gaps. Labeling ourselves as the most intelligent species has done irreparable psychic damage.
eMPee584 2y ago
This describes the current situation, but what about if models become self-learning and dynamic both in content (weights) as in structure / architecture? what changes if these digital systems are combined with biological neuronal networks and quantum processors? It seems too early to rule out a possibility of emergence of consciousness from machines.. beings, yet uncreated..
viraptor 2y ago
> since AIs do not have the ability to "understand" what they're doing, their input data has to be classified first to be usable to the machine You're mixing AI as a concept with a current, specific implementation. They are not the same. Also, even in current networks "understand what they're doing" is a bit fuzzy. Did you know that when using just numerical examples for a task, the description of the task appears in the intermediate layers?
thrance 2y ago
> All scientific evidence so far shows that this is not the case [citation needed] I get it, you're a dualist, you believe the soul is immaterial. That is your right. But don't claim it's the obvious truth when it really isn't. Since your "ghost" can't be measured or studied, by definition, its existence can never be proved. Refer to the Wikipedia pages for materialism/dualism for more elaborate arguments. If/When we ever get a truly intelligent AI, I hope you'll readjust your beliefs accordingly.
webmaven 2y ago
> Even with photo or video AIs, there is no "new" content, just rehashed old content which is a subset of the trained data (why AI-generated photos often have this kind of "smooth" look to them). You're misattributing the source of that quality. It actually comes from the "aesthetic" human preference fine tuning, because the average person finds "smooth" images more appealing. Prior to that fine-tuning, the models don't have this bias, or no more of it than is in the training data, anyway. Personally, I find the aesthetic fine-tuning quite annoying (and it has generally been getting worse with each new version of these models). If I prompt for a painting in Picasso's style, I really don't want a "prettier" version of that style that smooths out the textures and shapes to make them more pleasing to the eye.

kelseyfrog 2y ago

Consciouness of the gaps. Labeling ourselves as the most intelligent species has done irreparable psychic damage.

eMPee584 2y ago

This describes the current situation, but what about if models become self-learning and dynamic both in content (weights) as in structure / architecture? what changes if these digital systems are combined with biological neuronal networks and quantum processors? It seems too early to rule out a possibility of emergence of consciousness from machines.. beings, yet uncreated..

viraptor 2y ago

> since AIs do not have the ability to "understand" what they're doing, their input data has to be classified first to be usable to the machine You're mixing AI as a concept with a current, specific implementation. They are not the same. Also, even in current networks "understand what they're doing" is a bit fuzzy. Did you know that when using just numerical examples for a task, the description of the task appears in the intermediate layers?

thrance 2y ago

> All scientific evidence so far shows that this is not the case [citation needed] I get it, you're a dualist, you believe the soul is immaterial. That is your right. But don't claim it's the obvious truth when it really isn't. Since your "ghost" can't be measured or studied, by definition, its existence can never be proved. Refer to the Wikipedia pages for materialism/dualism for more elaborate arguments. If/When we ever get a truly intelligent AI, I hope you'll readjust your beliefs accordingly.

webmaven 2y ago

> Even with photo or video AIs, there is no "new" content, just rehashed old content which is a subset of the trained data (why AI-generated photos often have this kind of "smooth" look to them). You're misattributing the source of that quality. It actually comes from the "aesthetic" human preference fine tuning, because the average person finds "smooth" images more appealing. Prior to that fine-tuning, the models don't have this bias, or no more of it than is in the training data, anyway. Personally, I find the aesthetic fine-tuning quite annoying (and it has generally been getting worse with each new version of these models). If I prompt for a painting in Picasso's style, I really don't want a "prettier" version of that style that smooths out the textures and shapes to make them more pleasing to the eye.