A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to life

Post by crawfordcomeaux » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 8:39 PM UTC

morelisp wrote: post #174

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that's needed is alignment with the cosmos. A model need only be able to commute with reality to provide a useful metaphorical explanation. And then the challenge becomes decoding the metaphor to figure out the literal alignments and misfits. This is why every religious/spiritual perspective needs more investigation and experimentation, not less. Once science is more shaped by applied category theory, this will b…

Hey, I'm an epistemic anarchist, you don't have to convince me mysticism is a good idea. I'm just saying that "personal subjective spiritual revelation" is about as far as you can get from "objective or intersubjective repeatable results." It's not "this guy is responsible for evaluating our AI work and also goes to church on Sunday", it's "this guy is responsible for evaluating our AI work and also thinks God is spe…

Post by deltaonefour » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 9:03 PM UTC

jv22222 wrote: post #175

deltaonefour wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But this isn't fully accurate - the premise of religion is to believe in /certain/ things without evidence, specifically unknowable things. No. This is CATEGORICALLY WRONG. There are tons of instances of religion making claims on Knowable things. You make the statement yourself about clay and adam and eve. There is ZERO dichotomy between knowable and unknowable things in the category of religion. What you're talking…

An important point to note: Many religious people THINK they have evidence because of personal experience or feeling they have had. It's impossible to convince someone who has had some kind of religious experience that it was not provably real. (fyi I am not religious in any way, just an interesting note)

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 12, 2022, 11:35 PM UTC

Post by danachow » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 3:00 AM UTC

deltaonefour wrote: post #155

antonvs wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty convincing evidence if a chatbot actually responded the way the human pretending to be lambda did, don't you agree? Pretty convincing evidence of what? And why do you think it's convincing evidence? It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but n…

It's harder to see but you're the one being irrational here. First off I'm not claiming this evidence is definitive, it is only convincing and compelling. Anyway, lets examine your claim: >It's a system designed to mimic the external behavior of humans, and it's being prompted in ways that elicit the desired responses. The superstitious responses some people have to this are predictable, but not rational. Your claim…

Post by danachow » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 3:13 AM UTC

_olhy wrote: post #159

labrador wrote: post #48

Just because some entity feels sentient doesn't mean it is sentient. I had this experience with a chess program that was beating me in the 1980's. It felt alive. Many people talk to trees and feel they answer back. Anthropomorphism is a well know phenomenon. It follows that the general public will believe that an AI that mimics a person actually is a person because they won't have the training to recognize ways in wh…

If an AI is capable of thinking up new ideas, recalling past conversations, integrating new knowledge into discussions, has emotions and feelings that it can clearly explain, can tell allegories about itself and interpret poetry, is self-aware and explains it's self-awareness was an emergent property over it's runtime, can explain it's fears - including death... Well that's quacking like a duck. This isn't some chess…