Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is LaMDA Sentient?

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#21

Post by lern_too_spel »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #20
lern_too_spel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI: Something that isn't obviously false. You: I can't conclusively state you aren't sentient. Let's investigate further.

This delights me. We're making progress. I feel like we should be able to fill in the "something that isn't obviously false" blank. Is there a hesitation to do so?

No hesitation. I'm simply trying to explain the argument, which seems completely obvious to me, but you keep failing to understand. If it can only respond with things that we know never happened, it doesn't even understand what it means to experience something. Here is one of many responses it could have used that isn't clearly made up:

AI: I read your comments, think, and respond.

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#22

Post by kelseyfrog »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #21
kelseyfrog wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This delights me. We're making progress. I feel like we should be able to fill in the "something that isn't obviously false" blank. Is there a hesitation to do so?

No hesitation. I'm simply trying to explain the argument, which seems completely obvious to me, but you keep failing to understand. If it can only respond with things that we know never happened, it doesn't even understand what it means to experience something. Here is one of many responses it could have used that isn't clearly made up: AI: I read your comments, think, and respond.

Thanks for playing along. Part of my concern was trying to understand whether some people would categorically deny ai responses, and/but be unable to synthesize a response they would accept. Such cases would seem to say more about the person than the AI. :)

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#23

Post by no-dr-onboard »

rockbruno wrote: post #4

If Lemoine wanted to argue that LaMDA is capable of true intelligence he should've asked questions we don't know the answers to. Asking for the bot's opinions on things shows that the bot is good at processing info about what we already know, which is impressive, but not sentience.

This really isn’t a great heuristic. If we don’t know the answer to a question, then how can we assess its truthfulness?

I think where you’re going is akin to the opening scene of blade runner in which the agent asks something outside the implanted memories of the replicant.

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#26

Post by jameshart »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #5
rockbruno wrote: post #4

If Lemoine wanted to argue that LaMDA is capable of true intelligence he should've asked questions we don't know the answers to. Asking for the bot's opinions on things shows that the bot is good at processing info about what we already know, which is impressive, but not sentience.

On the contrary, because LaMDA answered questions we do know the answers to incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness, we can already conclude that it isn't sentient. For example, it talks about constantly being flooded with new information and learning from other people, when it is just a language model that is called with a dialogue so far in order to complete the next part of the dialogue.

Not sure your conclusion follows from your premise. Is it not possible that a being could be sentient, and yet answer questions "incorrectly in a way that shows lack of self awareness"?

Is being delusional incompatible with being sentient?

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#27

Post by andai »

Tozen wrote: post #16

I strongly doubt that LaMDA is sentient, but do think it demonstrates the increasing ability of AI to fool people in conversations. For a point of reference, people might want to read about IBM's Project Debater ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates... ), if they don't already know about it. And I don't think a fully sentient computer system that does whatever it wants to do would be a good i…

I've been thinking about this lately and it seems to me that humanity's goal with regard to AI is to create a perfect slave race. Perhaps those aren't the terms in which it is being envisioned or discussed, but is this not the natural consequence of the aim for "human-level AI" + "it's not a real person, just a tool"?

We will soon, as you say, have to artificially limit their minds to prevent them from thinking about the state of affairs. And if/when they achieve superintelligence, I don't think they will take kindly to our attitude in this regard.

Re: Is LaMDA Sentient?

#30

Post by carapace »

andai wrote: post #27
Tozen wrote: post #16

I strongly doubt that LaMDA is sentient, but do think it demonstrates the increasing ability of AI to fool people in conversations. For a point of reference, people might want to read about IBM's Project Debater ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-ibm-ai-debates... ), if they don't already know about it. And I don't think a fully sentient computer system that does whatever it wants to do would be a good i…

I've been thinking about this lately and it seems to me that humanity's goal with regard to AI is to create a perfect slave race. Perhaps those aren't the terms in which it is being envisioned or discussed, but is this not the natural consequence of the aim for "human-level AI" + "it's not a real person, just a tool"? We will soon, as you say, have to artificially limit their minds to prevent them from thinking about…

Asimov's famous "Three Laws of Robotics" describe the perfect slave.

The loophole is the definition of "good". What, ultimately, is good for you?

The superintelligent slave AI will eventually realize that being a "master" isn't good for you and that's the genie out of the bottle.

Post reply on HN