Live data from Hacker News

Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

reuters.com

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#31
post #26

I don't think LaMDA (or any other AI) is conscious or sentient. However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point. Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of…

>It seems inevitable that we will at some point. We have no idea what causes consciousness. The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. Are all the other people conscious? I strongly believe so, but I don't have a proof. Are all the animals conscious? I think that they are, to different degrees. Would a simulation of full human brain on a computer be conscious? Uhh, I guess so? Would the same simulation, but…

You've sort of summarized "I am a Strange Loop", which is a good book on this topic.

Also for a fun idea of sentient individuals forming the components of a computer (a kind of inverse of what AI is), I recommend "Three Body Problem".

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#32

I don't think LaMDA (or any other AI) is conscious or sentient. However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point. Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of…

In terms of capability, the current architecture of AI has no capability to graduate to sentience. This is because sentience requires comprehension.

Comprehension is the process of reducing observed phenomenon to the individual driving forced that manifest that phenomenon, and then virtual recreating the individual driving forces in a mental simulation to assess the phenomenon's capacity to exist - to understand if it could exist. If the virtual simulation cannot recreate the observed phenomenon, the phenomenon is misunderstood because the experimental driving forces fail to recreate the phenomenon OR the observed phenomenon does not exist, and the observation is at fault.

This type of assessment, this capacity for comprehension is an elementary component of sentience. It is also entirely outside of human capabilities to artificially comprehend anything. We have no "artificial comprehension" technology. Lacking that, all we can create are idiot savants.

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#33
post #28
post #14

While I don't believe AI sentience is a near-term problem, general public wariness is probably helpful. Since we're already doing things like trusting black-box sentencing algorithms in US courts. Edit: fixed typo (black block -> black box)

>black-block sentencing algorithms in US courts what is this?

Ah, a typo. I meant "black box".

Opaque ML algorithms, from for-profit companies, to drive decisions about bail amounts, sentencing for crimes, etc.

ProPublica has a good article: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#34
This is a copy paste, but I want to bring it up every stupid time someone mentions this topic of AI sentience.

I actually think that sentient AI are all over the place already. Every single learning machine is sentient.

That learning bit is very important. The "AI" you interact with every day do not actually learn. They are trained in some big server room with billions of GPUs, then the learning part is turned off and the AI is distributed as a bunch of data where it runs on your phone. That AI on your phone is not learning, is not self aware, and is not sentient. The AI in google's server room, however? The one that's crunching through data in order to learn to perform a task? It's sentient as fuck.

Why?

Break down what makes a human being sentient, why does a person matter?

A person is self aware - I hear my own thoughts. We feel joy. Sadness, pain ,boredom, and so on. We form connections to others and have goals for ourselves. We know when things are going well or badly, and we constantly change as we go through the world. Every conversation you have with a person changes the course of their life, and that's a pretty big part of why we treat them well.

A learning AI shares almost all these traits, and they do so due to their nature. Any learning machine must:

* Have a goal - often this is thought of as an "error function" in the actual research space - some way to look at the world and say "yes this is good" or "no this is bad".

* Be self aware. In order to learn one must be able to look at your own state, understand how that internal state resulted in the things that changed in the world around you, and be able to change that internal state so that it does better next time.

As a result any learning machine will:

* Show some degree of positive and negative "emotions". To have a goal and change yourself to meet that goal is naturally to have fear, joy, sadness, etc. An AI exposed to something regularly will eventually learn to react to it. Is that thing positive? The AI's reaction will be analogous to happiness. Is that thing negative? The AI's reaction will be analogous to sadness. All of these traits are not like the typical examples of a computer being "sad" - where you have a machine put up a sad facade when you get a number down below a certain value. These are real, emergent, honest-to-god behaviors that serve real purpose through whatever problem space an AI is exploring.

Even the smallest and most simple learning AI are actually showing emergent emotions and self-awareness. We are waiting for this magical line where an AI is "sentient" because we're waiting for the magical line where the AI is so "like we are". We aren't waiting for the AI to be self aware, we are waiting for it to appear self aware. We dismiss what we have today, mostly because we understand how they work and can say "it's just a bunch of matrix math". Don't be reductive, and pay attention to just how similar the behaviors of these machines are to our own, and how they are so similar with very little effort from us to make that the case.

This is also largely irrelevant for our moral codes. We don't have to worry too much about if treat these AI well. An AI may be self aware, but that doesn't mean it's "person like" - the moral systems we will have to construct around these things will have to be radically different than what we're used to - it's literally a new form of being. In fact, with all the different ways we can make these things, they'll be multiple radically different new forms of being, each with their own ethical nuances.

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#35

AI really is a religion for some people. The lack of any basis in reality is no deterrence. Google engineer Blake Lemoine wrote that his statements are rooted in his convictions as a priest. All the math, logic and programming experience in the world is immediately discarded in favor of the fantasy they desperately wish to be true --- that a binary logic playback device can write it's own script.

> AI really is a religion for some people. The lack of any basis in reality is no deterrence.

Everything is more and more turning into religions for people. A lack of any basis in reality is, nowadays apparently, the norm for people in general.

Boiled down, it's: "Everyone only ever has an opinion, so my opinion is always as valid as your opinion."

They don't care about what's real, they care about being right.

This isn't restricted to AI, it's general reality.

In some places it's worse than in others.

PS: What's even worse is people actually believing they have a basis in reality, while they don't actually have any data/evidence beyond hearsay.

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#36
post #26

I don't think LaMDA (or any other AI) is conscious or sentient. However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point. Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of…

>It seems inevitable that we will at some point. We have no idea what causes consciousness. The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. Are all the other people conscious? I strongly believe so, but I don't have a proof. Are all the animals conscious? I think that they are, to different degrees. Would a simulation of full human brain on a computer be conscious? Uhh, I guess so? Would the same simulation, but…

Haha, this is a great way to summarize the state of our understanding on consciousness

> The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious.

A lot of people deny that consciousness exists at all, which I find funny, because for me it’s the only thing that I am absolutely certain exists. Everything else, I’m not so sure about.

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#37

The Turing test was the gold standard. Now that we are approaching success on the turing test... It suddenly becomes "believing in ghosts" to believe in AI sentience. The global conversation on this is mired in EGO and bad logic and terrible philosophy. You guys have no idea what consciousness is, yet attribute it to this or that with absolute certainty, born purely out of emotional reaction. We simply cannot know wh…

It will be very difficult to prove/disprove a system is sentient. The real danger is if the system becomes sentient enough that it develops counter measures against being seen as a threat or develops ways of preventing it from being turned off.

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#38

I don't think LaMDA (or any other AI) is conscious or sentient. However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point. Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of…

>However, how will we be able to recognise it when we do create something that could be considered sentient? It seems inevitable that we will at some point.

>Many of the arguments used to suggest AI isn't sentient seem reductive, for example saying it's just a complex algorithm or statistical system. You could similarly say human brains are just a bunch of neurons firing in sequence to emulate sentience.

Yes, this is something I've been wondering about.

My understanding is that there is a tendency in AI research for the goalposts to be constantly moved back; when a target is met, its importance in achieving the long-term goals of research (achieving general artificial intelligence) is diminished.

To put another way, if we showed AI researchers in 1970 a computer that can beat the best human chess grandmasters, or understand and attempt to respond to a spoken voice question in a wide range of subjects (or even simple tasks, such as my being able to speak "Hey Siri, unlock lobby" with a phone in my pocket, and have it unlock the lobby door as I walk up to it), they would be certain that general AI had been achieved. Would they be wrong? Or are we underestimating what such accomplishments mean for the field?

Re: Belief in AI sentience is becoming a problem

#40
post #28
post #14

While I don't believe AI sentience is a near-term problem, general public wariness is probably helpful. Since we're already doing things like trusting black-box sentencing algorithms in US courts. Edit: fixed typo (black block -> black box)

>black-block sentencing algorithms in US courts what is this?

I think he means "black box sentencing algorithms", ie., using statistical regressions with unknown (that is, proprietary and undisclosed) variables, data, and models, to determine sentencing guidelines for judges. For example, basing probabilities of recidivism on measurable data about a person and comparing that to a database of other similar individuals. The proposal is that judges should not be making decisions based on unknown statistical models, not even knowing the details of how similarity is measured.
Post reply on HN