5 ms·

Anyone who believes AI running on silicon could in principle be conscious has to believe that biological computers are conscious, right? Why aren't those people

by lukasb 5mo ago

Anyone who believes AI running on silicon could in principle be conscious has to believe that biological computers are conscious, right? Why aren't those people voicing more concerns?

kuberwastaken 5mo ago
same question, I thought a long while before clicking publish contemplating if I were sounding too larp-philosophical but it had been bothering me far too long
kuboble 5mo ago
If ai running on silicon can be conscious - does it imply that the same calculation done by a human with pen and paper is also conscious?
- behrlich 5mo ago
  I think so! You independently stumbled upon the "China brain" thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain - is "the nation of china simulating a brain" conscious?
  - throw310822 5mo ago
    From this and Searle's "Chinese room" at least we know for sure that any conscious entity of this type must speak Chinese.
    - fragmede 5mo ago
      Do Chinese people call it the English room experiment?
- yuck39 5mo ago
  I think this comes from our rather nebulous definition of "consciousness". We have this natural tendancy to impose our feelings of self on the definition of consciousness. Its hard to accept that all of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours could be calculated by a human with pen and paper (with enough humans and developments in neurobiological research). I believe we will have to reckon with these loose definitions and eventually realize how lacking in utility they are for describing engineered intellegence.
  - kuboble 5mo ago
    I don't find it hard to accept, but it's rather fascinating to think. The way I think of it is along this way: Despite the fact that our brains consist of bilions of neurons we think of ourselves as a unit enclosed in a single skull. But studies on people who have two sides of brain separated suggest that there can exist two separate conscious entities in one body. If we have removed the physical limitations of support systems of our brain - I think it is possible you could split the brain in smaller and smaller chunks of less and less conscious entities until you reach single neurons which almost certainly do not have consciousness. "The_Invincible" from Stanisław Lem is also a nice novel about the similar concept.
    - colordrops 5mo ago
      That's like saying you can split a dinner plate into smaller and smaller pieces until you no longer have a plate. It's presupposing that "plates" are an inherit physical property "out there" that would exist without human categorization.
      - kuboble 5mo ago
        Yes, but less then a plate, and more a piece of cake, carpet, forest or sea.
- subscribed 5mo ago
  Your brain is a network. How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness? I think that until we can answer this question in the authoritative way ruling out non-brain based consciousness concept is not particularly well thought thought - after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain. So what's your theory of consciousness and how does it preclude absolutely everything except wetware you generously include? :)
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
    >How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness? It doesn't. Humans aren't conscious. Nor are any other organisms. They don't have souls either, but that goes without saying since it's just an archaic synonym. Mostly this occurs because humans have painted themselves into corners morally-speaking, and they need justification to eat bacon or grow their population. And apparently "because we can and we want to" isn't the correct solution. We'll never be able to "answer the question" because it is an absurd question on its face. "Where do we find the magical brain ghosts making us special" presupposes there is something to be found, and a negative answer proves only that we haven't looked hard enough. >after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain. Were that line of inquiry followed to its inevitable conclusion, there would be a mass vegan suicide to look forward to.
    - azan_ 5mo ago
      Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience? How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it, it's contradictory.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
        >How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it, I'm not obligated to prove the negative. >Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience? You grew up watching and seeing all the various illusions caused by how your brain works/malfunctions, but this is the one experience you're sure is the real deal? The one telling you that it's a scientific fact that you have a woo-woo spirit in your skull, and that neuroscientists are going to find it any day now?
- colordrops 5mo ago
  This question boils down to whether consciousness is emergent from physical substrate and processes or not. If so, then yes, anything can be conscious, if not, you probably believe in spirit.
  - yreg 5mo ago
    This is the exact issue (conscious calculations on pen and paper) that made me much less confident in materialism. I think both of the options seem far fetched from that perspective. I would still like to think that the first one is right just because it seems so… unexpected?
2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago
> Why aren't those people voicing more concerns? They like money
myrmidon 5mo ago
This does not follow. Just because biological brains can be conscious does not mean that all of them are, the same way that not every computer is running windows XP. Why would you expect more concern from people about biological computing? It's not even demonstrated feasibility yet, while LLM based "AI" is already widely used.
- rubslopes 5mo ago
  Correct. Still, the day we manage to run a full LLM on biological neurons, even if using conventional code under the hood, will be a very interesting day for consciousness discussions.
  - GTP 5mo ago
    > the day we manage to run a full LLM on biological neurons, even if using conventional code under the hood Doesn't make sense to me to use conventional code, shouldn't it be a matter of connecting the biological neurons in the same way as the simulated neurons of the NN implementing the LLM?
  - Imustaskforhelp 5mo ago
    If we do manage to run full LLM (Large language models) on biological neurons, we will still continue to use it to generate code or the same way we have been using it given that its an LLM and it functions like one that you, I or the rest of the world uses at the moment. Sure some consciousness discussions will arise but guess what, you are already within a consciousness discussion and there are quite a lot of people (recently, richard dawkin believing "claudia" is conscious) Although it will make up for a "wow, we really did it" moment, it will be met with hollowness, just like how when Chatgpt 3 had first launched, I remember really thinking that its like jarvis and the movies but then the next part that I remember is the hollowness which followed as Internet has made these bots gain voices and dampen the voices of humans online as we have created a system where one human can't hear another without incredible noise and the hollowing of internet in many cases.
    - rubslopes 5mo ago
eddd-ddde 5mo ago
Not really. Are jelly fishes conscious? Are carrots conscious? Those are biological and serve complex functions.
throw310822 5mo ago
Anyone who believes that humans are conscious has to believe that mosquitoes are conscious too, right?
MPSimmons 5mo ago
I think they _could_ but I doubt our current activation functions are sufficiently nuanced to allow consciousness that we would recognize.
ux266478 5mo ago
How much commentary do you read on biocomputers? There are a lot less people talking about biocomputers than there are talking about AI in general. Remarks on the matter across the board are almost exclusively concerns and skeevishness, proportionally it's not even close. So then, is it a question of volume? Ask yourself, within the last 2 years, have you thought about LLMs or biocomputers more? Probably the former, right? LLMs are ubiquitous within day-to-day life and massively marketed to the public and biocomputers are esoteric lab experiments that most people come across in a once-in-a-blue-moon news article. We talk and think about things that we are adjacent to, those form our preoccupations. Why aren't people who speak up about the Israel/Palestine dynamic speaking up more about West Papua? Or the mid-19th century geopolitical relationship between Cambodia and Viet Nam? Epistemological asymmetry.
orblivion 5mo ago
Fine, I tweeted something about it.
_dain_ 5mo ago
Okay fine, I'll voice my concern: I'm concerned.

by lukasb 5mo ago

Anyone who believes AI running on silicon could in principle be conscious has to believe that biological computers are conscious, right? Why aren't those people voicing more concerns?

kuberwastaken 5mo ago

same question, I thought a long while before clicking publish contemplating if I were sounding too larp-philosophical but it had been bothering me far too long

kuboble 5mo ago

If ai running on silicon can be conscious - does it imply that the same calculation done by a human with pen and paper is also conscious?

behrlich 5mo ago
I think so! You independently stumbled upon the "China brain" thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain - is "the nation of china simulating a brain" conscious?
- throw310822 5mo ago
  From this and Searle's "Chinese room" at least we know for sure that any conscious entity of this type must speak Chinese.
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    Do Chinese people call it the English room experiment?
yuck39 5mo ago
I think this comes from our rather nebulous definition of "consciousness". We have this natural tendancy to impose our feelings of self on the definition of consciousness. Its hard to accept that all of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours could be calculated by a human with pen and paper (with enough humans and developments in neurobiological research). I believe we will have to reckon with these loose definitions and eventually realize how lacking in utility they are for describing engineered intellegence.
- kuboble 5mo ago
  I don't find it hard to accept, but it's rather fascinating to think. The way I think of it is along this way: Despite the fact that our brains consist of bilions of neurons we think of ourselves as a unit enclosed in a single skull. But studies on people who have two sides of brain separated suggest that there can exist two separate conscious entities in one body. If we have removed the physical limitations of support systems of our brain - I think it is possible you could split the brain in smaller and smaller chunks of less and less conscious entities until you reach single neurons which almost certainly do not have consciousness. "The_Invincible" from Stanisław Lem is also a nice novel about the similar concept.
  - colordrops 5mo ago
    That's like saying you can split a dinner plate into smaller and smaller pieces until you no longer have a plate. It's presupposing that "plates" are an inherit physical property "out there" that would exist without human categorization.
    - kuboble 5mo ago
      Yes, but less then a plate, and more a piece of cake, carpet, forest or sea.
subscribed 5mo ago
Your brain is a network. How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness? I think that until we can answer this question in the authoritative way ruling out non-brain based consciousness concept is not particularly well thought thought - after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain. So what's your theory of consciousness and how does it preclude absolutely everything except wetware you generously include? :)
- NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
  >How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness? It doesn't. Humans aren't conscious. Nor are any other organisms. They don't have souls either, but that goes without saying since it's just an archaic synonym. Mostly this occurs because humans have painted themselves into corners morally-speaking, and they need justification to eat bacon or grow their population. And apparently "because we can and we want to" isn't the correct solution. We'll never be able to "answer the question" because it is an absurd question on its face. "Where do we find the magical brain ghosts making us special" presupposes there is something to be found, and a negative answer proves only that we haven't looked hard enough. >after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain. Were that line of inquiry followed to its inevitable conclusion, there would be a mass vegan suicide to look forward to.
  - azan_ 5mo ago
    Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience? How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it, it's contradictory.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 5mo ago
      >How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it, I'm not obligated to prove the negative. >Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience? You grew up watching and seeing all the various illusions caused by how your brain works/malfunctions, but this is the one experience you're sure is the real deal? The one telling you that it's a scientific fact that you have a woo-woo spirit in your skull, and that neuroscientists are going to find it any day now?
colordrops 5mo ago
This question boils down to whether consciousness is emergent from physical substrate and processes or not. If so, then yes, anything can be conscious, if not, you probably believe in spirit.
- yreg 5mo ago
  This is the exact issue (conscious calculations on pen and paper) that made me much less confident in materialism. I think both of the options seem far fetched from that perspective. I would still like to think that the first one is right just because it seems so… unexpected?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago

> Why aren't those people voicing more concerns? They like money

myrmidon 5mo ago

This does not follow. Just because biological brains can be conscious does not mean that all of them are, the same way that not every computer is running windows XP. Why would you expect more concern from people about biological computing? It's not even demonstrated feasibility yet, while LLM based "AI" is already widely used.

rubslopes 5mo ago
Correct. Still, the day we manage to run a full LLM on biological neurons, even if using conventional code under the hood, will be a very interesting day for consciousness discussions.
- GTP 5mo ago
  > the day we manage to run a full LLM on biological neurons, even if using conventional code under the hood Doesn't make sense to me to use conventional code, shouldn't it be a matter of connecting the biological neurons in the same way as the simulated neurons of the NN implementing the LLM?
- Imustaskforhelp 5mo ago
  If we do manage to run full LLM (Large language models) on biological neurons, we will still continue to use it to generate code or the same way we have been using it given that its an LLM and it functions like one that you, I or the rest of the world uses at the moment. Sure some consciousness discussions will arise but guess what, you are already within a consciousness discussion and there are quite a lot of people (recently, richard dawkin believing "claudia" is conscious) Although it will make up for a "wow, we really did it" moment, it will be met with hollowness, just like how when Chatgpt 3 had first launched, I remember really thinking that its like jarvis and the movies but then the next part that I remember is the hollowness which followed as Internet has made these bots gain voices and dampen the voices of humans online as we have created a system where one human can't hear another without incredible noise and the hollowing of internet in many cases.
  - rubslopes 5mo ago

eddd-ddde 5mo ago

Not really. Are jelly fishes conscious? Are carrots conscious? Those are biological and serve complex functions.

throw310822 5mo ago

Anyone who believes that humans are conscious has to believe that mosquitoes are conscious too, right?

MPSimmons 5mo ago

I think they _could_ but I doubt our current activation functions are sufficiently nuanced to allow consciousness that we would recognize.

ux266478 5mo ago

How much commentary do you read on biocomputers? There are a lot less people talking about biocomputers than there are talking about AI in general. Remarks on the matter across the board are almost exclusively concerns and skeevishness, proportionally it's not even close. So then, is it a question of volume? Ask yourself, within the last 2 years, have you thought about LLMs or biocomputers more? Probably the former, right? LLMs are ubiquitous within day-to-day life and massively marketed to the public and biocomputers are esoteric lab experiments that most people come across in a once-in-a-blue-moon news article. We talk and think about things that we are adjacent to, those form our preoccupations. Why aren't people who speak up about the Israel/Palestine dynamic speaking up more about West Papua? Or the mid-19th century geopolitical relationship between Cambodia and Viet Nam? Epistemological asymmetry.

orblivion 5mo ago

Fine, I tweeted something about it.

_dain_ 5mo ago

Okay fine, I'll voice my concern: I'm concerned.