4 ms·
> Indeed, the chatbot is less real than the character, because the character is the product of another mind, while the chatbot's words are the product of comple
by delichon 2mo ago
> Indeed, the chatbot is less real than the character, because the character is the product of another mind, while the chatbot's words are the product of complex mathematical operations conducted over a massive database of all the words humans have uttered, arranged by their frequency in relation to one another.
How is a fictional character the product of someone's mind, but a character generated from a massive database of words from other people's minds is not?
- WarmWash 2mo agoSilicon math can never be chemical goo math!
- hardbass 2mo agoWhy can't people just admit they believe in souls?
- bananaflag 2mo agoI frequently say what you say, but there is a more charitable reading: today's AIs are not "minds", as they are not stateful. Maybe continual learning ones (like the mini AGI exhibited today on the HN front page) will be perceived as "soulful".
- hardbass 2mo agoI think the working space in a given chat or session still counts as mind enough, but your argument is different, in that it argues about specific architectures rather than simply stating "software therefore cannot be conscious".
- Terr_ 2mo ago"You're trying to parse HTML with a linear regex. That algorithmic approach is too limited to do what we want with the problem-space." "Why can't you just admit that you think only tree-parsers have souls!?"
- hardbass 2mo agoBelieving a specific architecture is not capable of consciousness is a different matter. I am seeing statements that simply state things like "it is software or a machine and therefore cannot be conscious" without any further clarification. That clearly betrays a belief in souls.
- lolakutty 2mo agoSure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that. Problem is that we don't know any such hardware..
- hardbass 2mo agoWhy? The human brain already exists. Unless you have some well defined criterion for what hardware can support consciousness how can you say that?
- lolakutty 2mo agoOh, I thought you were talking about "architectures" not containing a human brain..
- hardbass 2mo agoWhy? What's so strange about a human brain? It is a physical system of molecules running electrical and chemical signals. We already have direct proof that physical systems support consciousness. So why do you believe other physical systems can't have consciousness? Give me your definition of what consciousness is.
- lolakutty 2mo ago>Give me your definition of what consciousness is. It should have the ability to feel...
- lolakutty 2mo agoWrong assumption that the chemical goo is only doing math....
- hardbass 2mo agoWhat's the non-math part you think? All of currently known physics is turing computable as far as I am aware.
- lolakutty 2mo agocurrently known physics is not good enough.. It is quite an arbitrary classification. What is so special about "current" knowledge...
- hardbass 2mo agoIf you think current physics is insufficient but future physics might be sufficient, I can accept that but its still an unfounded belief. If you truly believe something "more" is needed, then you are placing a bet that always lost for centuries. Bets in anything supernatural or aphysical have always and consistently failed till now.
- novafunc 2mo ago> How is a fictional character the product of someone's mind, but a character generated from a massive database of words from other people's minds is not? I imagine it's the difference between a chef combining ingredients with intentionality vs a person going to multiple fast food restaurants and blending everything together.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jimbokun 2mo agoBecause of the definitions of the words you strung together into that question. It answers itself.
- hermitShell 2mo agoThe AI generated character is a weighted average of many characters written by humans. Which are not created from nothing. People write characters based on a combination of other fictional characters, real characters, and perhaps some 'RNG'. Seems the distinction is that the AI generated character can not have any direct bearing on reality, because the LLM never got to know anyone directly. Not derived directly from experiences rooted in reality.
- bakugo 2mo agoThe product of an individual's mind is not the same as the mathematical average of the products of everyone's minds. The latter is obviously going to lack any of the uniqueness of the former. Current models absolutely suck at writing fictional characters, by the way. And they're getting worse. Seriously, try it yourself: have Claude write a story with a decent amount of dialogue involving character A, then have it write another story involving a completely different character B, then compare the dialogue between the two. You'll quickly notice the same blatantly unnatural speech patterns in both.
- Terr_ 2mo agoWhenever a human writes/improvises a fictional character, it is typically to communicate some concept or goal to other people. The fictional character--even a simplified author-insert speaking "directly"--is part of how the medium works. So in a way your question is equivalent to: "Why do humans have intents and minds but LLMs don't?"
- juuular 2mo agoPeople aren’t databases