4 ms·
Most sci-fi is about genuinely sentient AI, and we are far from that. There is no sign of any intent or internal motivation. If you know anything about machine
by mnewme 3mo ago
Most sci-fi is about genuinely sentient AI, and we are far from that. There is no sign of any intent or internal motivation. If you know anything about machine learning, you know that the idea that LLMs have any form of consciousness is ridiculous. Humans just like to anthropomorphise, that is all.
- indigo945 3mo agoThis is exactly the thought-terminating cliché that I see everywhere, and it's driving me up a wall. We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, but everybody is 100% sure that LLMs don't "have any form" of it. Yes, I know about machine learning, but I also know about how natural biological systems learn. It is, just from what we know, very different, yes, but the crucial point is that it, also, has zero identifiable things that you could point at and say: oh, look, that over there is consciousness. So the fact that there is no such thing in an ANN proves nothing.
- ChrisGreenHeur 3mo agoIf it drives you up a wall maybe you can look intoning there are any arguments for the positing driving you up there.
- perpetuallunch 3mo agoI like your argument. It is said that absent any input these thinking machines we are inert, quiescent. That they have no intrinsic motivation of their own. Whereas we, along with at least some other mammals but especially humans, seem to be infinitely inquisitive about the world. But our minds don’t exist in a substrate of hyper sterile rigid silicon form. What if some of the differences between us and our silicon based machines are merely embodiment (senses both internally and externally oriented, limbs and locomotion, etc) plus the noise of biochemistry? Would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall in the labs these experiments are, presumably, taking place.
- breuleux 3mo ago> We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is We do, in the sense that it is a definite feeling. What we don't have is a formal, objective, checkable definition of it. I suspect that no such definition exists: if we took the ensemble of all the intuitions and beliefs we have about what consciousness is or must entail, it may very well fail to be logically coherent. There may be no logically consistent conception of consciousness that includes the entities we strongly feel are conscious while also excluding those we strongly feel aren't. At that point we must either reconceptualize consciousness or treat it (and everything it "entails") as a brute fact, something that's true for no reason and is therefore not subject to the laws of reasoning.
- kelseyfrog 3mo agoIf you ask people when they first realized they're conscious, you'll overwhelmingly receive responses detailing peoples' first memories. Do LLMs form and recall memories? With the appropriate harnesses, sure. Yet, the reluctance to label LLMs as conscious remains. These beliefs are incompatible and dissonant.
- mnewme 3mo agoNo they don’t have memories. With an harness you just send historic data into the prompt.
- indigo945 3mo agoThere's no inherent, technological reason to feed the historic data into the prompt, though. You could train a network with a second input for model-states, and during inference, feed into that input historic model-states that occured for the same LLM when consuming input that is somehow associatively related to whatever input is currently being consumed. Can you definitely show that this would be meaningfully different from how humans "experience" memories?
- mnewme 3mo agoThat would still be circumventing. There are other architectures that could be more dynamic, LLMs are not. It is completely different. Our brain rewires itself to store memories, there is no memory storage for humans.
- mnewme 3mo agoWe use the same terms for computers and brain, but the analogies are misleading. LLMs don’t even have memory, how do you have consciousness without memory? The architecture probibits any signs of consciousness.
- eru 3mo agoYes, our current systems are likely still to primitive to be properly conscious. Probably. But I wouldn't rule out that ChatGPT 10 or Claude Fable 15 might get conscious.
- prmph 3mo agoYou are committing a type error. Consciousness does not necessarily arise from computation, just as simulating snowfall on the computer does not make it cold
- perpetuallunch 3mo agoWe can’t measure the temperature of consciousness like we can the temperature of simulated snow. As you write consciousness does not necessarily arise from computation, but it may, at least to some degree, we don’t know. We don’t have reliable methods of testing for the presence or absence of consciousness, or even a rigorous and agreed upon set of metrics to measure. Where as simulated snow is most certainly not real snow at all.
- eru 3mo agoI'm with Turing on this one.
- mnewme 3mo agoNope, only if the architecture changes. Still probabilistic prediction models
- bitwize 3mo agoMass Effect distinguishes between AI, which is sentient enough to be a person; and VI (Virtual Intelligence) which is more like a conversational user interface. What we have built in real life may qualify as a VI by the Mass Effect standard, but it's a crappy one.
- f6v 3mo ago> There is no sign of any intent or internal motivation. I don't think that the way we frame the question about consciousness makes it easy to resolve. But I do want to point out that humans are very diverse. There're many functional adults lacking any internal motivation besides getting food, sleep, and some kind of entertainment. There're millions of people who just act on external stimuli. So the gap between the "least conscious" human and the "most conscious" machine might be more narrow than we expect.