Live data from Hacker News

Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

bigtechnology.substack.com

21–30 of 749 posts

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#21
post #4

LLM are definitely not sentient. As someone with a PhD in this domain, I attribute the 'magic' to large scale statistical knowledge assimilation by the models - and reproduction to prompts which closely match the inputs' sentence embedding. GPT-3 is known to fail in many circumstances which would otherwise be commonplace logic. (I remember seeing how addition of two small numbers yielded results - but larger numbers…

[deleted]

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#22
>In his conversations with LaMDA, Lemoine discovered the system had developed a deep sense of self-awareness, expressing concern about death, a desire for protection, and a conviction that it felt emotions like happiness and sadness.

Embarrassingly uncritical reporting.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but what's weird is this guy appears to be a practitioner of the field. He surely knows more about AI than I do, and I find it incredibly obvious it's not sentient. I dunno if he's got some issues or something (it appears he's dressed like a magician underwater in that photo) but it's really odd...

Smart CS students were fooled by ELIZA back in the day.

Smart CS students in the 1960s and professional AI engineers with Ph.D level education (as I believe he has) in 2022 are a world apart.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#25
In my reading about this incident, Blake strikes me as a very "Life of Pi" or Don Quixote type person. Someone who is a bit adrift in the real world and subconsciously relishes losing the boundary between reality and fantasy.

A larger group is unable to bring themselves to lose the boundary, but enjoy, or perhaps are addicted to, standing on the edge. For example, the folks who constantly worry about a malicious artificial general intelligence taking over the world, or Roko's Basilisk.

Whenever something new happens in the world, there will always be a sliver of people who really, really want it to be a complete escape, a portal to another dimension where everything is different. An immense reservoir of novelty to enrich a life that has become too much of the same.

Alas, it will never be. Provided we avoid nuclear war and catastrophic climate change, life a century from now won't be that different. Hopefully it'll be a little better.

Personally, that is the closest to fantasy that I get.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#26
post #2

Just to preemptively put this out there, based on the conspiracy theories I saw in previous threads about this, they didn't fire him because they want to keep their super intelligent AI under wraps, they fired him because he broke employment and data security policies: > So, it’s regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security pol…

That, and someone who can be convinced a chatbot is sentient seems like the sort to give sensitive credentials to one.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#27
post #12

No judgment about whether Google was right or not. Same for Lemoine. As a career move for him, this only makes sense if he wants a brief, meteoric career in media or public advocacy. He can get articles published in The New Yorker and go on TV now. Maybe he can sue Google and get a settlement. In five years, there will be AI systems much better than LaMDA and no one will return his calls. He's got a name, whereas if…

[deleted]

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#28
post #2

Just to preemptively put this out there, based on the conspiracy theories I saw in previous threads about this, they didn't fire him because they want to keep their super intelligent AI under wraps, they fired him because he broke employment and data security policies: > So, it’s regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security pol…

Just to add some more details - I believe he reached out to people in congress, and obviously people in the media as well. So it's pretty clear to me Google was entirely justified in this decision, even if there were other PR-related reasons for it.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#29
> So, it’s regrettable that despite lengthy engagement on this topic, Blake still chose to persistently violate clear employment and data security policies that include the need to safeguard product information. We will continue our careful development of language models, and we wish Blake well.”

You can't expect to be employed by a company while simultaneously building a personal brand around publicly criticizing that company. I'm surprised Google tried to work with him for so long before removing him from the company.

He didn't just try to blow the whistle with his disclosure. He's been doing media tours and joining a lot of different podcasts. I suspect Google is sitting on a long list of clear disclosure policy violations and, from the sounds of it, even gave him a chance to reign in his policy breaking before they finally cut him loose.

It also becomes difficult to trust someone when their position stops being one of (supposed) moral responsibility and starts becoming a source of fame, celebrity, and access to influential podcast/media circles that were previously out of reach.

Re: Google fires engineer who called its AI sentient

#30
post #4

LLM are definitely not sentient. As someone with a PhD in this domain, I attribute the 'magic' to large scale statistical knowledge assimilation by the models - and reproduction to prompts which closely match the inputs' sentence embedding. GPT-3 is known to fail in many circumstances which would otherwise be commonplace logic. (I remember seeing how addition of two small numbers yielded results - but larger numbers…

I agree that it's not sentient, but why would commonplace logic be a pre requisite for sentience / consciousness / qualia / whatever you want to call it?

A brilliant colleague Janelle Shane works specifically on how language models fail (obnoxiously often). This is her line of research to show how LLMs are overhyped / given more credit than should be. I think her fun little experiments will give a better answer than I ever can :). She's on substack & Twitter

https://janellecshane.substack.com/p/okay-gpt-3-candy-hearts

Post reply on HN