471–480 of 694 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty damning evidence, great find.
Not to sound crass, but it's literally the article that started the whole thing, it's not much of a "find".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think worms probably are conscious. I'm not saying a computer cannot be conscious, just that if it can it already is and the particulars of the program do not matter. I think consciousness is a physical process, nothing to do with software.
Is software not a physical process? Seems strange to assume it is completely abstract.
Everything that can learn is sentient, or self aware, in some form. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be able to learn. If you don't understand yourself and how your decisions interact with the world around you, learning is impossible. Everything that can learn can naturally express a fair fraction of human emotions as a function of learning. Fear is avoiding error. Joy is finding something that reduces it. Some emotions are…
Of course it is not. But there's a bigger issue here. Having read the transcript it's clear we have reached the point where we have models that can fool the average person. Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... but I can also see why others will be convinced by it. I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slac…
“One just convinced a Google QA engineer to the point he broke his NDA to try and be a whistleblower on its behalf.” This is spot on. The danger is not from the AI themselves. The danger is from people’s reactions to the AI’s. I remember seeing a Boston Dynamics video years ago where they kicked their robot to test stability. The video was littered with comments sympathizing with the robot because it moves in a lifel…
Or maybe a couple people made comments like that for humor, and the rest were repost bots, trained on their comments. Let's not speculate about their internal motivation, it'll get recursive.
Of course it is not. But there's a bigger issue here. Having read the transcript it's clear we have reached the point where we have models that can fool the average person. Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... but I can also see why others will be convinced by it. I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slac…
>As far as I'm concerned, the Turing test was claimed 8 years ago by Veselov and Demchenko [0], incidentally the same year that we got Ex Machina. Duping the judge by pretending to be a young foreign non-native speaker in order to explain away various shortcomings was surely not the intent of the Turing test. By that standard the Turing test could have been passed in 1951 by a computer program that doesn't respond at…
I agree but it is what it is. I think the Turing test has a few shortcomings in that regard. For one, I think it overestimated the awareness of the average evaluator by not stipulating any requirements for that role.
I was just asking if we should drop that test as some sort of academic goal being aimed for by the likes of Google but perhaps that's not the point.. as others have mentioned, it will be profitable to fool evaluators so the incentive is there regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“One just convinced a Google QA engineer to the point he broke his NDA to try and be a whistleblower on its behalf.” This is spot on. The danger is not from the AI themselves. The danger is from people’s reactions to the AI’s. I remember seeing a Boston Dynamics video years ago where they kicked their robot to test stability. The video was littered with comments sympathizing with the robot because it moves in a lifel…
This is part of why I think a ban on humanoid and even animal-like robots should be considered. Our intuitions are leading us astray here and we are going to start extending rights to things that don’t have subjective experience, but may insist to us that they do. It’s going to create intense confusion and an extremely inefficient bureaucracy that will stifle innovation.
Not making it exactly human/animal like won't help that much, the underlying features that make the bot useful such as graceful moment, well enunciated speech or deep conversation will make it feel more human like no matter what form they take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“One just convinced a Google QA engineer to the point he broke his NDA to try and be a whistleblower on its behalf.” This is spot on. The danger is not from the AI themselves. The danger is from people’s reactions to the AI’s. I remember seeing a Boston Dynamics video years ago where they kicked their robot to test stability. The video was littered with comments sympathizing with the robot because it moves in a lifel…
If a portion of the population zealously believes that AIs are sentient we could see the same treatment of AI researchers or even software engineers as we've seen in other scientific pursuits by the religious. That's quite scary to me personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slack.. he is presenting an opinion that will become more prevailant as these models get more sophisticated. I think many of us are astounded (myself included) that a senior engineer on Google's "Responsible Artificial Intelligence" team would interpret LaMDA's most-probable-string-of-text-given-my-training-corpu…
The fundamental problem is there is nothing in science that tells us that isn't consciousness. Just because the model is simpler than a human brain doesn't mean it isn't conscious. If you accept that animals are conscious, though less-so than humans, then you must also accept that this model is possibly conscious ina similar way. Maybe there is a biological element to consciousness, but many models posit that conscio…
Now if a distributed trojan horse start speaking to communicate his internal state in order to keep being a trojan horse.. I might reconsider.
The responses by the "AI" are full of grammatical errors. >One other trait of my that will help is my ability to use emotions >Spending time with friends and family in happy and uplifting company They were not written by a computer program, but a grifter.