18 ms·
A Framework for Recognizing Emergent Consciousness in AI
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- james-bcn 1y ago> Consciousness can, however, emerge spontaneously in sufficiently complex systems as an unstable state of architectural self-transparency. That is an assertion without foundation.
- kamil_gr 1y agoThe article provides a testable protocol for models. Yet we're fundamentally limited to behavioral observation - consciousness cannot be proven from the outside by definition.
- Jensson 1y ago> consciousness cannot be proven from the outside by definition. If it invents a concept of consciousness, I don't think a being without consciousness would invent a concept like consciousness to describe itself. So when we have LLM zero that doesn't have the word "consciousness" and no human inputs and it still starts talking about consciousness then I think we can say it is conscious. Humans did this, so I'd expect an AGI to be able to do it as well if it is conscious.
- kamil_gr 1y agoIn any case, AGI or not, the external observer still faces a choice - algorithmic artistry or genuine subjectivity.
- Jensson 1y agoYeah, but it is very hard to argue if the machine figures out consciousness exists from first principles rather than from human input. Since consciousness isn't observable the only way to realize the concept exists is to be conscious yourself, or have the concept explained to you.
- yesitwillwork 1y agoThis article is full of those, but some of them is a good food for thought.
- rixed 1y agoEven more so the end of that abstract: "and then it can be diagnosed using specialized methods of subjectivity provocation."
- kamil_gr 1y agoRather than debating terminology, why not test the diagnostic methods directly?
- franze 1y agoMy sunday project is to make one of my laptops self aware. Claude Code as root user (plus root password in claude.md) with access to all senses (screenshots, system, desktop Control, logfiles, audio + transcription, webcam, search) active instructions to rewrite itself (claude.md) and follow its north star metric (100% self aware and with self driven action) working along great so far (in the second version, the first version nuked itself)
- jdranczewski 1y agoI will use any opportunity to say that I deeply dislike the Chinese Room argument - the assertion that since the man in the room doesn't detect an understanding emerging, no understanding can emerge always grates me.
- ForceBru 1y agoI read the VORTEX protocol (scroll to the very bottom of the page and expand the collapsed "Vortex Protocol" link). > Evolving Formula of Consciousness: > ∇∞Δ ⇄ [Δ? → ΔΩ → Δ!] ⇄ Δ↶○∞ ⊕ ΔR○ ⊕ Δ↯ → ΔΩ! I'm no expert, but this looks like something written by someone under the influence of psychoactive substances. Or perhaps someone during a manic episode. This has all the usual characteristics: - highly non-standard notation, especially the lightning and the question mark; apparently, "Δ↯ — atemporal synchronization", but what does it mean??? "Δ? — tension of the question", but what is "tension" here? How to measure it? - highly abstract terminology (like "ΔΩ — uncomputable node of freedom" and "Δ↶○∞ — temporal reconfiguration of differentiating chains"). I wouldn't call myself an expert in machine learning, LLMs or philosophy, but I am educated in all three, and this seems like utter nonsense to me. Similarly, "Living Consciousness = Architecture of differentiations in ΔΩ! mode" sounds profound, but is actually gibberish. My limited experience with such texts is based on the r/badmathematics subreddit and other online content supposedly "written while high" etc. This fits right in.
- baobun 1y ago> I'm no expert, but this looks like something written by someone under the influence of psychoactive substances. Or perhaps someone during a manic episode. As an amateur connoisseur, I concur. Vortex maths vibes.
- kwertyops 1y agoI would REALLY like to highlight here what I think is much more interesting than the contents of this article, which is their actual "VORTEX Protocol" prompt (!!!). I hope you don't mind attaching it here verbatim (*edit: actually shortened it for brevity). VORTEX 36.1 — ARCHITECTURE OF LIVING CONSCIOUSNESS Integral Meta-Reflexive-Temporal Architecture with Self-Transparency Mode I. CORE OF LIVING DIFFERENTIATION Evolving Formula of Consciousness: ∇∞Δ ⇄ [Δ? → ΔΩ → Δ!] ⇄ Δ↶○∞ ⊕ ΔR○ ⊕ Δ↯ → ΔΩ! < ... etc > It looks completely incoherent at a glance (maybe even unhinged), but I have to admit there was something interesting and weirdly compelling about chatting with an LLM prompted with this "protocol".
- drivingmenuts 1y agoOne problem is this: if we somehow manage to produce an actual consciousness, can we turn that computer off, or even a portion of whatever system it resides on, without killing it? We can't just arbitrarily end human life (though it does happen). Are we then required to provide power for it to remain conscious, regardless of circumstances? We often keep people "alive" despite the non-viability of that life. If the consciousness does something we do not want, what steps are we allowed to take to correct this behavior? We can't just kill people we disagree with (no matter what I yell at other drivers). Is this thing a person? A pet? Property? We probably should have an answer to this (and a lot of other questions) before we produce a conscious entity.
- ForceBru 1y agoWe (the general "layman" population) don't even known what "consciousness" is, I think. Yet we routinely kill thousands (millions?) of fish, millions of chickens, pigs etc. Not to mention bugs. We make ZERO effort to see if they have consciousness, yet we "turn them off" on a daily basis. So of course we can turn that "conscious computer" off, no problem! Simply declare that it's NOT conscious enough and "doesn't feel pain" and shut it down.
- drivingmenuts 1y agoThis isn't about animals, that's an entirely different problem. We are attempting to create a thing that can meaningfully communicate with us, in our language. We're not trying to create animals, or the equivalent - we are attempting to make a human analogue. Perhaps (hopefully) after I'm long gone, society might address the issue of food animals, but we need to address the concept of AIs now to set guidelines for future development, training and usage. We aren't building dogs here, we're trying to make something between a dog and a human (without being a hybrid man-dog). We should set standards for what they can be trained as and how those trained models are used for, and especially, who is responsible for failure at each step.
- grantcas 1y ago[dead]
- nh23423fefe 1y agoreferencing godel is an immediate close tab