4 ms·

> Dumping tokens into a pile of linear algebra doesn't magically create sentience. More precisely: we don't know which linear algebra in particular magically c

by ben_w 9mo ago

> Dumping tokens into a pile of linear algebra doesn't magically create sentience. More precisely: we don't know which linear algebra in particular magically creates sentience. Whole universe appears to follow laws that can be written as linear algebra. Our brains are sometimes conscious and aware of their own thoughts, other times they're asleep, and we don't know why we sleep.

habinero 9mo ago
"Our brains are governed by physics": true "This statistical model is governed by physics": true "This statistical model is like our brain": what? no You don't gotta believe in magic or souls or whatever to know that brains are much much much much much much much much more complex than a pile of statistics. This is like saying "oh we'll just put AI data centers on the moon". You people have zero sense of scale lol
- drdeca 9mo ago
  They didn’t say “statistical model”, they said “linear algebra”. It very much appears that time evolution is unitary (with the possible exception of the born rule). That’s a linear algebra concept. Generally, the structure you describe doesn’t match the structure of the comment you say has that structure.
  - empyrrhicist 9mo ago
    Ok, how about "a pile of linear algebra [that is vastly simpler and more limited than systems we know about in nature which do experience or appear to experience subjective reality]"? Context is important.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  Which is why I phrased it the way I did. We, all of us collectively, are deeply, deeply ignorant of what is a necessary and sufficient condition to be a being that has an experience. Our ignorance is broad enough and deep enough to encompass everything from panpsychism to solipsism. The only thing I'm confident of, and even then only because the possibility space is so large, is that if (if!) a Transformer model were to have subjective experience, it would not be like that of any human. Note: That doesn't say they do or that they don't have any subjective experience. The gap between Transformer models and (working awake rested adult human) brains is much smaller than the gap between panpsychism and solipsism.
judahmeek 9mo ago
> we don't know why we sleep Garbage collection, for one thing. Transfer from short-term to long-term memory is another. There's undoubtedly more processes optimized for or through sleep.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  Those are things we do while asleep, but do not explain why we sleep. Why did evolution settle on that path, with all the dangers of being unconscious for 4-20 hours a day depending on species? That variation is already pretty weird just by itself. Worse, evolution clearly can get around this, dolphins have a trick that lets them (air-breathing mammals living in water) be alert 24/7, so why didn't every other creature get that? What's the thing that dolphins fail to get, where the cost of its absence is only worthwhile when the alternative is as immediately severe as drowning?
  - kzalesak 9mo ago
    Because dolphins are also substantially less affected by the day/night cycle. It is more energy intensive to hunt in the dark (less heat, less light), unless you are specifically optimized for it.
    - ben_w 9mo ago
      That's a just-so story, not a reason. Evolution can make something nocturnal, just as it can give alternating-hemisphere sleep. And not just nocturnal, cats are crepuscular. Why does animal sleep vary from 4-20 hours even outside dolphins? Sure, there's flaws with what evolution can and can't do (it's limited to gradient descent), but why didn't any of these become dominant strategies once they evolved? Why didn't something that was already nocturnal develop the means to stay awake and increase hunting/breeding opportunities? Why do insects sleep, when they don't have anything like our brains? Do they have "Garbage collection" or "Transfer from short-term to long-term memory"? Again, some insects are nocturnal, why didn't the night-adapted ones also develop 24/7 modes? Everything about sleep is, at first glance, weird and wrong. There's deep (and surely important) stuff happening there at every level, not just what can be hypothesised about with a few one-line answers.
empyrrhicist 9mo ago
I'm objecting to a positive claim, not making a universal statement about the impossibility of non-human sentience. Seriously - the language used is a wild claim in the context.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  And that's fine, but I was doing the same to you :) Consciousness (of the qualia kind) is still magic to us. The underpants gnomes of philosophy, if you'll forgive me for one of the few South Park references that I actually know: Step 1: some foundation; step 2: ???; step 3: consciousness.
  - empyrrhicist 9mo ago
    Right, I don't disagree with that. I just really objected to the "must", and I was using "pile of linear algebra" to describe LLMs as they currently exist, rather than as a general catch-all for things which an be done with/expressed in linear algebra.

by ben_w 9mo ago

habinero 9mo ago

"Our brains are governed by physics": true "This statistical model is governed by physics": true "This statistical model is like our brain": what? no You don't gotta believe in magic or souls or whatever to know that brains are much much much much much much much much more complex than a pile of statistics. This is like saying "oh we'll just put AI data centers on the moon". You people have zero sense of scale lol

drdeca 9mo ago
They didn’t say “statistical model”, they said “linear algebra”. It very much appears that time evolution is unitary (with the possible exception of the born rule). That’s a linear algebra concept. Generally, the structure you describe doesn’t match the structure of the comment you say has that structure.
- empyrrhicist 9mo ago
  Ok, how about "a pile of linear algebra [that is vastly simpler and more limited than systems we know about in nature which do experience or appear to experience subjective reality]"? Context is important.
ben_w 9mo ago
Which is why I phrased it the way I did. We, all of us collectively, are deeply, deeply ignorant of what is a necessary and sufficient condition to be a being that has an experience. Our ignorance is broad enough and deep enough to encompass everything from panpsychism to solipsism. The only thing I'm confident of, and even then only because the possibility space is so large, is that if (if!) a Transformer model were to have subjective experience, it would not be like that of any human. Note: That doesn't say they do or that they don't have any subjective experience. The gap between Transformer models and (working awake rested adult human) brains is much smaller than the gap between panpsychism and solipsism.

judahmeek 9mo ago

> we don't know why we sleep Garbage collection, for one thing. Transfer from short-term to long-term memory is another. There's undoubtedly more processes optimized for or through sleep.

ben_w 9mo ago
Those are things we do while asleep, but do not explain why we sleep. Why did evolution settle on that path, with all the dangers of being unconscious for 4-20 hours a day depending on species? That variation is already pretty weird just by itself. Worse, evolution clearly can get around this, dolphins have a trick that lets them (air-breathing mammals living in water) be alert 24/7, so why didn't every other creature get that? What's the thing that dolphins fail to get, where the cost of its absence is only worthwhile when the alternative is as immediately severe as drowning?
- kzalesak 9mo ago
  Because dolphins are also substantially less affected by the day/night cycle. It is more energy intensive to hunt in the dark (less heat, less light), unless you are specifically optimized for it.
  - ben_w 9mo ago
    That's a just-so story, not a reason. Evolution can make something nocturnal, just as it can give alternating-hemisphere sleep. And not just nocturnal, cats are crepuscular. Why does animal sleep vary from 4-20 hours even outside dolphins? Sure, there's flaws with what evolution can and can't do (it's limited to gradient descent), but why didn't any of these become dominant strategies once they evolved? Why didn't something that was already nocturnal develop the means to stay awake and increase hunting/breeding opportunities? Why do insects sleep, when they don't have anything like our brains? Do they have "Garbage collection" or "Transfer from short-term to long-term memory"? Again, some insects are nocturnal, why didn't the night-adapted ones also develop 24/7 modes? Everything about sleep is, at first glance, weird and wrong. There's deep (and surely important) stuff happening there at every level, not just what can be hypothesised about with a few one-line answers.

empyrrhicist 9mo ago

I'm objecting to a positive claim, not making a universal statement about the impossibility of non-human sentience. Seriously - the language used is a wild claim in the context.

ben_w 9mo ago
And that's fine, but I was doing the same to you :) Consciousness (of the qualia kind) is still magic to us. The underpants gnomes of philosophy, if you'll forgive me for one of the few South Park references that I actually know: Step 1: some foundation; step 2: ???; step 3: consciousness.
- empyrrhicist 9mo ago
  Right, I don't disagree with that. I just really objected to the "must", and I was using "pile of linear algebra" to describe LLMs as they currently exist, rather than as a general catch-all for things which an be done with/expressed in linear algebra.