2 ms·
> LLMs do not think. I understand that you're responding within the thread, but to take this back to the original point, which is about human dignity, justice
by Timwi 1y ago
> LLMs do not think.
I understand that you're responding within the thread, but to take this back to the original point, which is about human dignity, justice and labor:
LLMs do not need to “think” for the point to be valid. Chess engines do not “think” and do not have any conception of what they're really doing, but they still win at chess every time. The worry is that AI will put an end to human dignity, not that it “thinks too much”.
- nopelynopington 1y agoNo, and I'm not arguing with the point that they pose a risk to human dignity, because I wholeheartedly agree with that. I'm taking issue with the idea that LLMs are an intellect, or intelligent. Your example of chess engines is absolutely on point. LLMs don't think any more that chess engines do, but their chess game is language
- bumby 1y agoIs this because our concept of human dignity/moral worth is predicated on what we “do”? Perhaps we can move away from the idea that our identity is tied to our works, and just have moral worth rooted in our being. Maybe having a human experience is enough justification for dignity? Then it doesn’t matter if LLMs are better than us, at least unless they can be shown to have equivalent depth of experience.
- Timwi 1y agoI completely agree with you — we should definitely decouple our conception of worth from what we “do”. And if the only issue with AI is that it gets good at doing what we want it to do, then I also agree with you. But if AIs become superintelligent and plot an overthrow of humanity, it won't matter what our conception of identity or dignity is, the AI will still kill us. The AI doesn't ascribe dignity or worth to humans. It only pursues goals.