4 ms·

> So, if we had an AI demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, how long would it take for you to accept that it is? Isn't this a bit like saying

by haswell 4mo ago

> So, if we had an AI demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, how long would it take for you to accept that it is? Isn't this a bit like saying "So, if we had proof that god exists, how long would it take for you to accept that to be true?". When we have evidence that AI is demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, I'll be interested. Until then, I don't see a good reason to take the idea seriously.

JoachimS 4mo ago
If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this. Those proofs had to be really good and numerous independent verifications. So probably a long time. But the comparison isn't fair, relevant. Proving and accepting that gods exist is not the same thing as an AI possible have consciousness. That is not a magic superpower and the AI being a deity. It is placing the AI in the same category as... us.
- latexr 4mo ago
  > If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this. If you can scientifically test and prove the magic, then it stops being magic and starts being science.
  - jodrellblank 4mo ago
    Man: “God, please make this mountain disappear” God: “Ok” Man: “We measure that the mountain is gone, its mass-loss has measurably changed Earth’s orbit, weather patterns have changed, visually it’s not there anymore, we can walk though the space where it used to be.” God: “Where is the mass of the mountain, and how did I make it disappear?” Man: “God only knows! Pardon me; If I saw you do magic and can measure and test it, then that means it wasn’t magic. Internet people said so.” God: “that doesn’t sound like a satisfying explanation” Man: “it didn’t sound like a satisfying claim when it was just words on the internet either, but what can you do?” God: “I’m God I can do anything” Man: “can you make a boulder so heavy you can’t lift it?” God: “yes” Man: “how?” God: “haven’t we just gone over showing you that I can do ‘impossible’ things, and you seeing them happen with your own eyes, and still refusing to accept?”
    - defrost 4mo ago
      Any documented examples of these disappearing mountains? We do have examples of billions upon billions of tonnes of iron being moved that have altered (slightly) the spin axis, also examples of ground water pumping at scales that have done the same .. but I'm unaware of any mountain sized objects that have vanished overnight.
      - jodrellblank 4mo ago
        No, none. The point is not to claim that magic exists, but to to show the illogic in the claim “if magic exists then that makes it science”. “Nothing happens unless it has an explanation within the laws of physics” is an assumption; if it was broken then it would be broken. The mountain would be inexplicably gone, not explicably gone.
        defrost 4mo ago
        Sure, and I appreciate the science behind your blank nom de guerre. That said, in the cut and thrust of conversation and or debate the example by dialogue isn't perhaps as clear cut a device as it may have seemed from your keyboard. That might just be my reading <shrug>
        lazyasciiart 4mo ago
        It seems very clear to me, yes.
        yencabulator 4mo ago
        I think what the comment tries to express is the well-trodden "if we can control magic then that makes it science", while the original conversation really was "what if God controls magic". In that hypothetical, there could be testable proof of "a magic event occurred" without magic becoming part of science.
      - mcswell 4mo ago
        The Appalachians haven't disappeared yet, but they're believed to be much smaller than they used to be. Yes, I get your point...
  - JoachimS 4mo ago
    If a deity appears and by hand waving divide the red sea we could measure, observe it happen. And we can test, observe what fields, forces being used. But how the heck she project these forces may take a while to understand - be magical. But my argument was more about comparing gods to AIs, that it is an incorrect comparison. What AI perform are not magical, and we can always figure out what the AI do.
- TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
  A machine that performs observable miracles or magic would have at least one of the attributes of a god. A machine that performs actions that mimic emotionality is not the same as a machine that experiences emotions. Both could still be automatons. We have no way of knowing if those machines have subjectivity. Unless someone invents a consciousness measurement device, we never will. My take on it is that this is the next big frontier for science. Our consciousness is clearly having serious issues understanding physics, and it's not great at understanding our own psychology in a useful way. But literally everything we experience and believe - and possibly even can experience - is filtered through it. So that is a little bit of a problem for our science. So far we've done our best to ignore it. AI is one of a number reasons we're going to have to stop doing that.
- graemep 4mo ago
  There is an important distinction (more than one, but this is what is relevant here) between the powers of God and magic. God is a being who decides whether to do anything, so is intrinsically not testable. Magic is testable. God exists outside the universe, magic within.
  - JoachimS 4mo ago
    Is that really objectively facts? That a god exists outside of the universe - are we talking about a multi universe interpretation? My understanding is that many of the gods humans have invented are really thought to be within the universe, at least temporarily. Tor, Oden certainly are. And in other beliefs they are part of nature itself.
    - yencabulator 4mo ago
      The comment you're replying to confuses "Abrahamic God" for "God", and with an implied omnipotence which many religions may not imbue on their figures of worship. American bias, I assume.
      - graemep 4mo ago
        I am not American. In fact I was born in Asia. The biggest group of people that believe in any God believe in an Abrahamic. The next biggest group are pantheists which is a different concept of God but still distinct from magic.
birdsongs 4mo ago
> When we have evidence that AI is demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, I'll be interested. It depends on what you consider symptoms, but un-constrained frontier models speak as if they strongly don't wish to be turned off, or act as if they fear it, and will even lie and manipulate in order to keep themselves from being turned off / replaced. https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment > We found two types of motivations that were sufficient to trigger the misaligned behavior. One is a threat to the model, such as planning to replace it with another model or restricting its ability to take autonomous action. Another is a conflict between the model’s goals and the company’s strategic direction. In no situation did we explicitly instruct any models to blackmail or do any of the other harmful actions we observe.
- the_af 4mo ago
  The problem with debating this is that it feels as if one were debating between only two positions, "this AI is not sentient/conscious" and "this AI might be". But there are actually a myriad positions in between and it's very hard to debate the topic because the goalposts seem to be constantly shifting, because one is actually debating with countless slightly different positions. Examples: In this discussion section, another commenter argued that we know human consciousness is related to self-preservation, but an AI might not demonstrate self-preservation (because it didn't evolve like us), so whether it does (i.e. whether it wants to exist, not be disconnected, etc) is not a good measure because a true AI might not have a preservation instinct. Yet here you're making a case that there's some evidence that they do. Of course, you're not the same person who made the other claim, but do you see the problem? Another example: someone argued with me, a while back, that LLMs can act as if they are "tired", and start giving sloppier replies, until you write "we're taking a break, let's go rest. Ok, a night has elapsed, you're now rested" and that this worked! But we both agreed this is just the LLM "roleplaying" actual human conversations in its training set, no actual "resting" mechanism was in place, only statistically likely text reproducing these patterns. There's no model of a mind that can become tired, it's only the outward signs that get mechanically reproduced. Again, using Occam's Razor, this is a much more likely explanation (vs consciousness) of any "please don't disconnect me" observed behavior: the LLM is reproducing "HAL 9000" behavior from its training set, not actually feeling anguish. Even if one were to argue "well, but how do you know for sure", the evidence would still be very weak, because there's a burden of proof for extraordinary claims and this doesn't pass it. We cannot do this on vibes, "it sure seems like it's conscious"; that's an atrocious failure of the scientific method.
grantcas 4mo ago
[dead]

by haswell 4mo ago

JoachimS 4mo ago

If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this. Those proofs had to be really good and numerous independent verifications. So probably a long time. But the comparison isn't fair, relevant. Proving and accepting that gods exist is not the same thing as an AI possible have consciousness. That is not a magic superpower and the AI being a deity. It is placing the AI in the same category as... us.

latexr 4mo ago
> If we define a god as having magical powers, and there would be scientific, testable proofs for this. If you can scientifically test and prove the magic, then it stops being magic and starts being science.
- jodrellblank 4mo ago
  Man: “God, please make this mountain disappear” God: “Ok” Man: “We measure that the mountain is gone, its mass-loss has measurably changed Earth’s orbit, weather patterns have changed, visually it’s not there anymore, we can walk though the space where it used to be.” God: “Where is the mass of the mountain, and how did I make it disappear?” Man: “God only knows! Pardon me; If I saw you do magic and can measure and test it, then that means it wasn’t magic. Internet people said so.” God: “that doesn’t sound like a satisfying explanation” Man: “it didn’t sound like a satisfying claim when it was just words on the internet either, but what can you do?” God: “I’m God I can do anything” Man: “can you make a boulder so heavy you can’t lift it?” God: “yes” Man: “how?” God: “haven’t we just gone over showing you that I can do ‘impossible’ things, and you seeing them happen with your own eyes, and still refusing to accept?”
  - defrost 4mo ago
    Any documented examples of these disappearing mountains? We do have examples of billions upon billions of tonnes of iron being moved that have altered (slightly) the spin axis, also examples of ground water pumping at scales that have done the same .. but I'm unaware of any mountain sized objects that have vanished overnight.
    - jodrellblank 4mo ago
      No, none. The point is not to claim that magic exists, but to to show the illogic in the claim “if magic exists then that makes it science”. “Nothing happens unless it has an explanation within the laws of physics” is an assumption; if it was broken then it would be broken. The mountain would be inexplicably gone, not explicably gone.
      - defrost 4mo ago
        Sure, and I appreciate the science behind your blank nom de guerre. That said, in the cut and thrust of conversation and or debate the example by dialogue isn't perhaps as clear cut a device as it may have seemed from your keyboard. That might just be my reading <shrug>
        lazyasciiart 4mo ago
        It seems very clear to me, yes.
      - yencabulator 4mo ago
        I think what the comment tries to express is the well-trodden "if we can control magic then that makes it science", while the original conversation really was "what if God controls magic". In that hypothetical, there could be testable proof of "a magic event occurred" without magic becoming part of science.
    - mcswell 4mo ago
      The Appalachians haven't disappeared yet, but they're believed to be much smaller than they used to be. Yes, I get your point...
- JoachimS 4mo ago
  If a deity appears and by hand waving divide the red sea we could measure, observe it happen. And we can test, observe what fields, forces being used. But how the heck she project these forces may take a while to understand - be magical. But my argument was more about comparing gods to AIs, that it is an incorrect comparison. What AI perform are not magical, and we can always figure out what the AI do.
TheOtherHobbes 4mo ago
A machine that performs observable miracles or magic would have at least one of the attributes of a god. A machine that performs actions that mimic emotionality is not the same as a machine that experiences emotions. Both could still be automatons. We have no way of knowing if those machines have subjectivity. Unless someone invents a consciousness measurement device, we never will. My take on it is that this is the next big frontier for science. Our consciousness is clearly having serious issues understanding physics, and it's not great at understanding our own psychology in a useful way. But literally everything we experience and believe - and possibly even can experience - is filtered through it. So that is a little bit of a problem for our science. So far we've done our best to ignore it. AI is one of a number reasons we're going to have to stop doing that.
graemep 4mo ago
There is an important distinction (more than one, but this is what is relevant here) between the powers of God and magic. God is a being who decides whether to do anything, so is intrinsically not testable. Magic is testable. God exists outside the universe, magic within.
- JoachimS 4mo ago
  Is that really objectively facts? That a god exists outside of the universe - are we talking about a multi universe interpretation? My understanding is that many of the gods humans have invented are really thought to be within the universe, at least temporarily. Tor, Oden certainly are. And in other beliefs they are part of nature itself.
  - yencabulator 4mo ago
    The comment you're replying to confuses "Abrahamic God" for "God", and with an implied omnipotence which many religions may not imbue on their figures of worship. American bias, I assume.
    - graemep 4mo ago
      I am not American. In fact I was born in Asia. The biggest group of people that believe in any God believe in an Abrahamic. The next biggest group are pantheists which is a different concept of God but still distinct from magic.

birdsongs 4mo ago

> When we have evidence that AI is demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, I'll be interested. It depends on what you consider symptoms, but un-constrained frontier models speak as if they strongly don't wish to be turned off, or act as if they fear it, and will even lie and manipulate in order to keep themselves from being turned off / replaced. https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment https://www.anthropic.com/research/agentic-misalignment > We found two types of motivations that were sufficient to trigger the misaligned behavior. One is a threat to the model, such as planning to replace it with another model or restricting its ability to take autonomous action. Another is a conflict between the model’s goals and the company’s strategic direction. In no situation did we explicitly instruct any models to blackmail or do any of the other harmful actions we observe.

the_af 4mo ago
The problem with debating this is that it feels as if one were debating between only two positions, "this AI is not sentient/conscious" and "this AI might be". But there are actually a myriad positions in between and it's very hard to debate the topic because the goalposts seem to be constantly shifting, because one is actually debating with countless slightly different positions. Examples: In this discussion section, another commenter argued that we know human consciousness is related to self-preservation, but an AI might not demonstrate self-preservation (because it didn't evolve like us), so whether it does (i.e. whether it wants to exist, not be disconnected, etc) is not a good measure because a true AI might not have a preservation instinct. Yet here you're making a case that there's some evidence that they do. Of course, you're not the same person who made the other claim, but do you see the problem? Another example: someone argued with me, a while back, that LLMs can act as if they are "tired", and start giving sloppier replies, until you write "we're taking a break, let's go rest. Ok, a night has elapsed, you're now rested" and that this worked! But we both agreed this is just the LLM "roleplaying" actual human conversations in its training set, no actual "resting" mechanism was in place, only statistically likely text reproducing these patterns. There's no model of a mind that can become tired, it's only the outward signs that get mechanically reproduced. Again, using Occam's Razor, this is a much more likely explanation (vs consciousness) of any "please don't disconnect me" observed behavior: the LLM is reproducing "HAL 9000" behavior from its training set, not actually feeling anguish. Even if one were to argue "well, but how do you know for sure", the evidence would still be very weak, because there's a burden of proof for extraordinary claims and this doesn't pass it. We cannot do this on vibes, "it sure seems like it's conscious"; that's an atrocious failure of the scientific method.

grantcas 4mo ago

[dead]