4 ms·

It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence "Understanding" has enough philosophical leew

It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence "Understanding" has enough philosophical leeway in its use to allow at least the possibility of sentience as a prerequisite. This is where the discussion about LLM capabilities becomes genuinely difficult, and dismissing that difficulty as "word games" or "spirituality vs evidence" is not helpful.

LordDragonfang 4mo ago
Considering that "sentience" has enough "philosophical leeway" that it's just as reasonable to assert that LLMs are sentient (and at extremes, that they have been sentient for years) -- especially if we are, as you suggest, supposed to include any philosophically possible definition -- I don't think that's a meaningful rebuttal. If no one can agree on whether it's sentient, it's bad faith to choose a fringe definition that hands off its definition to such a nebulous term. In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod. For a meaningful -- "helpful" -- discussion on such things, one has to assume that everyone is choosing a definition which is closer to the median usage and relies on not being totally subjective. Furthermore, given the breadth of options, it should be assumed to be a definition which allows which permits the form of the question to be meaningful, rather than begging the question -- if your definition is tautological enough that non-biological entities can't have understanding, you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion. Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants.
- mellosouls 4mo ago
  it's bad faith to choose a fringe definition that hands off its definition to such a nebulous term. I do not think it is at all unreasonable or "fringe" to regard understanding as involving intentionality: ie a directedness of thought toward the object-relations being "grasped". That may not be the only possible conception of understanding but it is a mainstream philosophical idea. In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod. Then you seem to be confusing "hard to understand" with "meaningless". you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion. Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants Have a think about that (repeated) tone before responding. Fwiw I am a long-time believer in consciousness being fully realisable in machines; I think the jury is still out on LLMs.

LordDragonfang 4mo ago

Considering that "sentience" has enough "philosophical leeway" that it's just as reasonable to assert that LLMs are sentient (and at extremes, that they have been sentient for years) -- especially if we are, as you suggest, supposed to include any philosophically possible definition -- I don't think that's a meaningful rebuttal. If no one can agree on whether it's sentient, it's bad faith to choose a fringe definition that hands off its definition to such a nebulous term. In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod. For a meaningful -- "helpful" -- discussion on such things, one has to assume that everyone is choosing a definition which is closer to the median usage and relies on not being totally subjective. Furthermore, given the breadth of options, it should be assumed to be a definition which allows which permits the form of the question to be meaningful, rather than begging the question -- if your definition is tautological enough that non-biological entities can't have understanding, you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion. Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants.

mellosouls 4mo ago
it's bad faith to choose a fringe definition that hands off its definition to such a nebulous term. I do not think it is at all unreasonable or "fringe" to regard understanding as involving intentionality: ie a directedness of thought toward the object-relations being "grasped". That may not be the only possible conception of understanding but it is a mainstream philosophical idea. In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod. Then you seem to be confusing "hard to understand" with "meaningless". you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion. Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants Have a think about that (repeated) tone before responding. Fwiw I am a long-time believer in consciousness being fully realisable in machines; I think the jury is still out on LLMs.