3 ms·

My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality. Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else. T

My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality. Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else. Therefore, everything is "maybe" conscious, although "maybe" isn't exactly the right word. There are infinite different ways you can imagine being something else with the consciousness and capacity for sensations you have, which don't involve the thing doing anything it's not already. Or, you can believe everything and everyone else has no consciousness, and you won't mis-predict anything (unless you assume people don't react to being called unconscious...). Is AI conscious? I believe "yes", but in a different way than humans, and in a way that somehow means I don't think anyone who believes "no" is wrong. Is AI smart? Yes in some ways: chess algorithms are smart in some ways, AI is smarter in more, and in many ways AI is still dumber than most humans. How does that relate to morality? Morality is a feeling, so when an AI makes me feel bad for it I'll try to help it, and when an AI makes a significant amount of people feel bad for it there will be significant support for it.

tantalor 11mo ago
The word for that is supernatural
- tempodox 11mo ago
  Nothing revives people’s forgotten believe in magic quite like “AI”.
kylecazar 11mo ago
I'm trying to understand your position... It's my belief that I can tell that a table isn't conscious. Conscious things have the ability to feel like the thing that they are, and all evidence points to subjective experience occurring in organic life only. I can imagine a table feeling like something, but I can also imagine a pink flying elephant -- it just doesn't correspond to reality. Why suspect that something that isn't organic life can be conscious, if we have no reason to suspect it?
- armchairhacker 11mo ago
  You can imagine a table feeling if you can imagine the table not doing anything (being unable to or deciding not to). It's not intuitive because it doesn't really help you, whereas imagining a human or even animal as conscious lets you predict its next actions (by predicting your next actions if you were in its place), so there's an evolutionary benefit (also because it causes empathy which causes altruism). > Why suspect that something that isn't organic life can be conscious, if we have no reason to suspect it? There may be no good reason unless you feel it's interesting. Although there's probably at least one good reason to imagine consciousness specifically on a (non-organic) neural network: because, like humans and animals, it lets us predict how the NN will behave (in some situations; in others it's detrimental, because even though they're more similar than any known non-NN algorithm, NNs are still much different than humans and moreso than animals like dogs).
  - kylecazar 11mo ago
    Thanks for elaborating, I get what you mean by orthogonal to reality now... I think what you are on to is the utility for us to see some x as conscious. I went down a panpsychism rabbit hole relatively recently and haven't fully recovered.
svieira 11mo ago
> Morality is a feeling It isn't. Otherwise, the Nazis were moral. As were the Jews. But in that case, all moral truth is relative, which means absolute moral truth doesn't exist. Which means that "moral" is a synonym for "feeling" or "taste". Which it is not. > My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality. It is how you and I experience reality and we exist in reality, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than congruent with reality. > Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else. It would be an interesting and rather useless definition of "conscious" that didn't allow for expressions of consciousness. Expression isn't required for consciousness, but many conscious observers can be in turn observed in action and their consciousness observed. Which maybe is what you are saying, just from the perspective that "sometimes you can't observe evidence for the consciousness of another"?
- armchairhacker 11mo ago
  Morality is relative, in that "the universe is uncaring". However, many many more people believe the Nazis were immoral vs. the Jews, even if they don't say it. Humans have evolved a sense of morality, and everyone's is slightly different, but there are common themes which have and continue to strongly influence the progression of society's laws and norms. > It would be an interesting and rather useless definition of "conscious" that didn't allow for expressions of consciousness. It basically is useless, by definition. And you can define "consciousness" differently, like "has neurons" or "convincingly acts like an animal", in which case I've been referring to something different. How do the authors of the "AI Consciousness Paper" and the author of this blog post (I assume Scott Alexander) and the define consciousness? I have to actually read them... OK, instead of specifically defining consciousness itself, the paper takes existing definitions and applies them to AI. The theories themselves are on page 7, but the important part is that the paper looks at indicators, i.e. expression, so even in many theories, it uses your general definition of consciousness. The blog post essentially criticizes the article. Scott defines ("one might divide") three kinds of consciousness: physical (something else), supernatural (my definition), and computational (your definition). He doesn't outright state he prefers any one, but he at least doesn't dismiss the supernatural definition.
dleary 11mo ago
> Is AI conscious? I believe "yes" [...] and in a way that somehow means I don't think anyone who believes "no" is wrong. What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong? Do "believe", "yes", and "no" have definitions? ... This rhetorical device sucks and gets used WAY too often. "Does Foo have the Bar quality?" "Yes, but first understand that when everyone else talks about Bar, I am actually talking about Baz, or maybe I'm talking about something else entirely that even I can't nail down. Oh, and also, when I say Yes, it does not mean the opposite of No. So, good luck figuring out whatever I'm trying to say."
- armchairhacker 11mo ago
  > What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong? Opinion Another example: when I hear the famous "Yanny or Laurel" recording (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) I hear "Laurel". I can understand how someone hears "Yanny". Our perceptions conflict, but neither of us are objectively wrong, because (from Wikipedia) "analysis of the sound frequencies has confirmed that both sets of sounds are present".
  - dleary 11mo ago
    > Opinion The single word "opinion" is not an answer to the question I asked. > Another example: ... "Yanny or Laurel" This is not remotely the same thing. > I can understand how someone hears "Yanny"> So can everybody else. Everyone I have heard speak on this topic has the same exact experience. Everyone "hears" one of the words 'naturally', but can easily understand how someone else could hear the other word, because the audio clip is so ambiguous. An ambiguous audio recording, which basically everyone agrees can be interpreted multiple ways, which wikipedia explicitly documents as being ambiguous, is very different from meanings of the words "yes", "no", and "believe". These words have concrete meanings. You wouldn't say that "you believe the recording says Laurel". You say "I hear Laurel, but I can understand how someone else hears Yanny".
itsalwaysgood 11mo ago
Maybe it helps to consider motivation. Humans do what we do because of emotions and an underlying unconsciousness. An AI on the other hand is only ever motivated by a prompt. We get better results when we use feedback loops to refine output, or use better training. One lives in an environment and is under continuous prompts due to our multiple sensory inputs. The other only comes to life when prompted, and sits idle when a result is reached. Both use feedback to learn and produce better results. Could you ever possibly plug the AI consciousness into a human body and see it function? What about a robot body?
- armchairhacker 11mo ago
  So every trained model (algorithm + weights) has a recording of one consciousness, put through many simulations (different contexts). Whereas a human's or animal's consciousness only goes through one simulation per our own consciousness's simulation (the universe). > Could you ever possibly plug the AI consciousness into a human body and see it function? What about a robot body? People have trained AIs to control robots. They can accomplish tasks in controlled environments and are improving to handle more novelty and chaos, but so far nowhere near what even insects can handle.
a_cardboard_box 11mo ago
According to your view, the text you have written has nothing to do with consciousness.

tantalor 11mo ago

The word for that is supernatural

tempodox 11mo ago
Nothing revives people’s forgotten believe in magic quite like “AI”.

kylecazar 11mo ago

I'm trying to understand your position... It's my belief that I can tell that a table isn't conscious. Conscious things have the ability to feel like the thing that they are, and all evidence points to subjective experience occurring in organic life only. I can imagine a table feeling like something, but I can also imagine a pink flying elephant -- it just doesn't correspond to reality. Why suspect that something that isn't organic life can be conscious, if we have no reason to suspect it?

armchairhacker 11mo ago
You can imagine a table feeling if you can imagine the table not doing anything (being unable to or deciding not to). It's not intuitive because it doesn't really help you, whereas imagining a human or even animal as conscious lets you predict its next actions (by predicting your next actions if you were in its place), so there's an evolutionary benefit (also because it causes empathy which causes altruism). > Why suspect that something that isn't organic life can be conscious, if we have no reason to suspect it? There may be no good reason unless you feel it's interesting. Although there's probably at least one good reason to imagine consciousness specifically on a (non-organic) neural network: because, like humans and animals, it lets us predict how the NN will behave (in some situations; in others it's detrimental, because even though they're more similar than any known non-NN algorithm, NNs are still much different than humans and moreso than animals like dogs).
- kylecazar 11mo ago
  Thanks for elaborating, I get what you mean by orthogonal to reality now... I think what you are on to is the utility for us to see some x as conscious. I went down a panpsychism rabbit hole relatively recently and haven't fully recovered.

svieira 11mo ago

> Morality is a feeling It isn't. Otherwise, the Nazis were moral. As were the Jews. But in that case, all moral truth is relative, which means absolute moral truth doesn't exist. Which means that "moral" is a synonym for "feeling" or "taste". Which it is not. > My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality. It is how you and I experience reality and we exist in reality, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than congruent with reality. > Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else. It would be an interesting and rather useless definition of "conscious" that didn't allow for expressions of consciousness. Expression isn't required for consciousness, but many conscious observers can be in turn observed in action and their consciousness observed. Which maybe is what you are saying, just from the perspective that "sometimes you can't observe evidence for the consciousness of another"?

armchairhacker 11mo ago
Morality is relative, in that "the universe is uncaring". However, many many more people believe the Nazis were immoral vs. the Jews, even if they don't say it. Humans have evolved a sense of morality, and everyone's is slightly different, but there are common themes which have and continue to strongly influence the progression of society's laws and norms. > It would be an interesting and rather useless definition of "conscious" that didn't allow for expressions of consciousness. It basically is useless, by definition. And you can define "consciousness" differently, like "has neurons" or "convincingly acts like an animal", in which case I've been referring to something different. How do the authors of the "AI Consciousness Paper" and the author of this blog post (I assume Scott Alexander) and the define consciousness? I have to actually read them... OK, instead of specifically defining consciousness itself, the paper takes existing definitions and applies them to AI. The theories themselves are on page 7, but the important part is that the paper looks at indicators, i.e. expression, so even in many theories, it uses your general definition of consciousness. The blog post essentially criticizes the article. Scott defines ("one might divide") three kinds of consciousness: physical (something else), supernatural (my definition), and computational (your definition). He doesn't outright state he prefers any one, but he at least doesn't dismiss the supernatural definition.

dleary 11mo ago

> Is AI conscious? I believe "yes" [...] and in a way that somehow means I don't think anyone who believes "no" is wrong. What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong? Do "believe", "yes", and "no" have definitions? ... This rhetorical device sucks and gets used WAY too often. "Does Foo have the Bar quality?" "Yes, but first understand that when everyone else talks about Bar, I am actually talking about Baz, or maybe I'm talking about something else entirely that even I can't nail down. Oh, and also, when I say Yes, it does not mean the opposite of No. So, good luck figuring out whatever I'm trying to say."

armchairhacker 11mo ago
> What does it even mean to "believe the answer is yes", but "in a way that somehow means" the direct contradiction of that is not wrong? Opinion Another example: when I hear the famous "Yanny or Laurel" recording (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanny_or_Laurel) I hear "Laurel". I can understand how someone hears "Yanny". Our perceptions conflict, but neither of us are objectively wrong, because (from Wikipedia) "analysis of the sound frequencies has confirmed that both sets of sounds are present".
- dleary 11mo ago
  > Opinion The single word "opinion" is not an answer to the question I asked. > Another example: ... "Yanny or Laurel" This is not remotely the same thing. > I can understand how someone hears "Yanny"> So can everybody else. Everyone I have heard speak on this topic has the same exact experience. Everyone "hears" one of the words 'naturally', but can easily understand how someone else could hear the other word, because the audio clip is so ambiguous. An ambiguous audio recording, which basically everyone agrees can be interpreted multiple ways, which wikipedia explicitly documents as being ambiguous, is very different from meanings of the words "yes", "no", and "believe". These words have concrete meanings. You wouldn't say that "you believe the recording says Laurel". You say "I hear Laurel, but I can understand how someone else hears Yanny".

itsalwaysgood 11mo ago

Maybe it helps to consider motivation. Humans do what we do because of emotions and an underlying unconsciousness. An AI on the other hand is only ever motivated by a prompt. We get better results when we use feedback loops to refine output, or use better training. One lives in an environment and is under continuous prompts due to our multiple sensory inputs. The other only comes to life when prompted, and sits idle when a result is reached. Both use feedback to learn and produce better results. Could you ever possibly plug the AI consciousness into a human body and see it function? What about a robot body?

armchairhacker 11mo ago
So every trained model (algorithm + weights) has a recording of one consciousness, put through many simulations (different contexts). Whereas a human's or animal's consciousness only goes through one simulation per our own consciousness's simulation (the universe). > Could you ever possibly plug the AI consciousness into a human body and see it function? What about a robot body? People have trained AIs to control robots. They can accomplish tasks in controlled environments and are improving to handle more novelty and chaos, but so far nowhere near what even insects can handle.

a_cardboard_box 11mo ago

According to your view, the text you have written has nothing to do with consciousness.