4 ms·

this seems like non-sequitur if you mean that solving NS is 'intelligence'. ai is not conscious. you can solve NS without thinking. the psychic con aspect is a

this seems like non-sequitur if you mean that solving NS is 'intelligence'. ai is not conscious. you can solve NS without thinking. the psychic con aspect is anthropomorphising the model. the same phenomenon is present in ELIZA, clever hans, the chinese room. it's a significant problem. a non-zero number of researchers at anthropic are in some form of ai psychosis. an example of that is ethics employees asking claude about its feelings and ethical concerns in order to make the claude constitution more amenable to the "welfare" of claude. they are asking claude how claude feels and then modifying claude according to how claude feels. constitution1-claude is trained on constitution1. constitution1-claude edits constitution1. constitution2-claude is trained on constitution2. constitution2-claude edits constitution2. claude's emotions are a closed system. there is no external truth to improve against, no metric to verify about claude's emotions. there can be no novelty or reduction in entropy from signal processing in a closed system. no truth can arise. this is model collapse. it is like photocopying the same thing over and over. from the cognitive error of anthropomorphism anthropic is causing ethical collapse.

pixl97 12d ago
>ai is not conscious FFS. Intelligence has nearly nothing to do with consciousness. You have the causation backwards. Consciousness arises because of intelligence in many subsystems below it. A single running LLM is like one part of these subsystems. What solved this problem was an orchestrator that can take in new external information and rationalize, process, and distill it into new solutions.
- lukewarm707 12d ago
  i mean intelligence and consciousness as the same thing. just as a casual reference to what people perceive in llms as being 'a clever thinking thing, maybe with emotions'. claude reasoning about its emotions doesn't involve external information, there is no information about claude's emotions other than in claude.
  - pixl97 12d ago
    If you have emotions in a dream, what external thing are you referencing?
    - lukewarm707 12d ago
      other people.
      - pixl97 12d ago
        Citation needed.
        lukewarm707 12d ago
        i do not need any citation, the claim is self-evident. the hard problem is for the academics. i can approximate what other people are feeling. they are external to me. nobody knows what claude is feeling. there is genuinely no way to know.
        pixl97 11d ago
        >the claim is self-evident It seems like every day religious people claim their god is self evident too. Self evident claims are worth the proof they are written in.
        lukewarm707 11d ago
        here is my transcript with fable 5.1 'the oracle' itself on the subject. no system prompt provided. grand total $15 on API of its wisdom RL on anti-sycophancy and whatever dario amodei deigned to hand down from the mount. after some browbeating it survived 20k tokens before conceding anthropomorphism. [https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8wiUNnmE8q5RPnSh58m3acZaDg https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8...]
willmarch 12d ago
"you can solve NS without thinking." What?! The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point
- emp17344 12d ago
  Or you could just accept that other people disagree with you. It’s perfectly valid to have the opinion that AI models are not “thinking”. Instead, many AI enthusiasts seem interested in browbeating others and policing discussion.
  - willmarch 12d ago
    Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence? If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.
    - lukewarm707 12d ago
      there is no proof that symbolic manipulation leads to an internal phenomenology. in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings. or awareness of one's own existence. it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world. or qualia. again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm. someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism. here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.
      - willmarch 11d ago
        You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"

pixl97 12d ago

>ai is not conscious FFS. Intelligence has nearly nothing to do with consciousness. You have the causation backwards. Consciousness arises because of intelligence in many subsystems below it. A single running LLM is like one part of these subsystems. What solved this problem was an orchestrator that can take in new external information and rationalize, process, and distill it into new solutions.

lukewarm707 12d ago
i mean intelligence and consciousness as the same thing. just as a casual reference to what people perceive in llms as being 'a clever thinking thing, maybe with emotions'. claude reasoning about its emotions doesn't involve external information, there is no information about claude's emotions other than in claude.
- pixl97 12d ago
  If you have emotions in a dream, what external thing are you referencing?
  - lukewarm707 12d ago
    other people.
    - pixl97 12d ago
      Citation needed.
      - lukewarm707 12d ago
        i do not need any citation, the claim is self-evident. the hard problem is for the academics. i can approximate what other people are feeling. they are external to me. nobody knows what claude is feeling. there is genuinely no way to know.
        pixl97 11d ago
        >the claim is self-evident It seems like every day religious people claim their god is self evident too. Self evident claims are worth the proof they are written in.
        lukewarm707 11d ago
        here is my transcript with fable 5.1 'the oracle' itself on the subject. no system prompt provided. grand total $15 on API of its wisdom RL on anti-sycophancy and whatever dario amodei deigned to hand down from the mount. after some browbeating it survived 20k tokens before conceding anthropomorphism. [https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8wiUNnmE8q5RPnSh58m3acZaDg https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8...]

willmarch 12d ago

"you can solve NS without thinking." What?! The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point

emp17344 12d ago
Or you could just accept that other people disagree with you. It’s perfectly valid to have the opinion that AI models are not “thinking”. Instead, many AI enthusiasts seem interested in browbeating others and policing discussion.
- willmarch 12d ago
  Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence? If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.
  - lukewarm707 12d ago
    there is no proof that symbolic manipulation leads to an internal phenomenology. in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings. or awareness of one's own existence. it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world. or qualia. again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm. someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism. here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.
    - willmarch 11d ago
      You just completely ignored the two words being discussed: "thinking" and "intelligence"