181–190 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the DeepMind / Brain reorg happened way before all this, didn't it? Might be misremembering history...
The merger was April ‘23, GPT-4 was March ‘23 which is too close to be the trigger for the re-org, so it was in response to ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). There was talk of a “code red” around that time (December ‘22). https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/20/23691468/google-ai-deepmi... https://www.aiwithvibes.com/p/google-issues-code-red-respons...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I defined sentience as experiencing qualia, then decided to back up my assertion that most people consider animals to be sentient with an example. Pain is the one animal sensation humans care about, so I picked animal cruelty. I chose chickens because they're the dumbest animal that humans worry about hurting. I'm sorry that you've taken umbrage with my example. I didn't select fruit flies because I don't think a maj…
You literally redefined sentience again here: "don't consider them sentient" and your flag pole is "or I guess not enough because they don't feel bad about killing them". You're drawing arbitrary goalposts for goals that aren't even relevant: At the end of the day we don't need philosophy to prove Lemoine was a schmuck. Millions got got access to RLHF chat. We can see how they would have made his initial mistake. But…
> You literally redefined sentience again here: "don't consider them sentient" and your flag pole is "or I guess not enough because they don't feel bad about killing them".
I don't know what a flagpole is, but I haven't redefined sentience at all. My definition is consistent: sentience means experiencing qualia, i.e. perceiving sensation. Most people don't think oysters are sentient, and do think gorillas are sentient, so clearly it's commonly believed that there are either degrees of sentience, or some minimal baseline of complexity required for it to emerge. Thus, picking fruit flies wouldn't have been a good example, because a majority of people might not agree that they're sentient.
But you seem to be going out of your way to misunderstand my points, frankly. And there's no point continuing a dialog with someone who's intentionally misinterpreting you.
--
Also, fwiw, I lean towards LaMDA not being sentient, and it's plausible to me that Lemoine was a grifter who used his leaks for media attention. I just dislike how patronizing it is to frame him as a Luddite who just couldn't wrap his tiny brain around how LLMs work. Smart, informed people can disagree about machine sentience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. For example I asked it some questions in linear algebra[1]. The answers (if you didn't know linear algebra) seemed convincing, full of equations etc but the equations were wrong. Looked good, but just totally wrong in loads of important ways. When I pointed out the mistake it geneally returned with a proof of why its previous result was wrong. Now I could have walked away patting myself on the back, but even wit…
>What's the difference between a linear map and a linear transformation? Are they not the same?
It happily found that movie I had been looking for (couldn't remember the title), with a summary of the plotline, director's name.
Then I googled it to watch the trailer again. Couldn't find it. But I found a movie from the same director with the same title from 2005. The little bastard had invented a summary based on my hints and presented it as an answer.
At least when I confronted them about it they admitted they made it up.
(Why is that submission on the third page so soon ?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You literally redefined sentience again here: "don't consider them sentient" and your flag pole is "or I guess not enough because they don't feel bad about killing them". You're drawing arbitrary goalposts for goals that aren't even relevant: At the end of the day we don't need philosophy to prove Lemoine was a schmuck. Millions got got access to RLHF chat. We can see how they would have made his initial mistake. But…
Millions of people have gotten access to ChatGPT and Bard, not LaMDA. Per other comments in this thread by Googlers, they found it creepy how personable and human LaMDA acted. Again, I'm not saying LaMDA is sentient, just that LaMDA may have been significantly better than Bard at passing for human, and that they fine-tuned Bard to sound more robotic for precisely this reason. > You literally redefined sentience again…
This all goes back to my original point: there's handwavy academic ponderance, and there's engaging with the real world. OpenAI showed what happens when you balance the two. LaMDA (and frankly this discussion) demonstrate what happens when you chase one end of that scale without well-defined purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I find so interesting about LLMs. I have yet to see a single criticism of them that doesn't apply to humans. "Well, it's just a stochastic parrot." And most people aren't? "Meh, it just makes stuff up." And people don't do that? "It doesn't know when it's wrong." Most people not only don't know when they're wrong, they don't care . "It sucks at math." Yeah, let's not go there. "It doesn't know anything th…
How about “it cannot tell if you if it made something up / guessed with intuitive levels of confidence”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I find so interesting about LLMs. I have yet to see a single criticism of them that doesn't apply to humans. "Well, it's just a stochastic parrot." And most people aren't? "Meh, it just makes stuff up." And people don't do that? "It doesn't know when it's wrong." Most people not only don't know when they're wrong, they don't care . "It sucks at math." Yeah, let's not go there. "It doesn't know anything th…
How about “it cannot tell if you if it made something up / guessed with intuitive levels of confidence”.
Look at this. People wish they were as calibrated as the left lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could response with something like "I'm just so scared. I don't know what to do. I'm so scared" to prompts that GPT3 would handle a-okay.
That is precisely because it wasn't trained with enough RLHF.
While it is possible that more RLHF would improve it, let's not jump to the conclusion a bit too fast. Considering that you think that Google wouldn't have resources to fund it, a rather ludicrous notion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: Lemoine was a random SWE experiencing RLHF'd LLM output for the first time, just like the rest of the world did just a few months later... and his mind went straight to "It's Sentient!". That would have been fine, but when people who understood the subject tried to explain, he decided that it was actually proof he was right so he tried to go nuclear. And when going…
By "sentient," do you mean able to experience qualia? Most people consider chickens sentient (otherwise animal cruelty wouldn't upset us, since we'd know they can't actually experience pain) - is it so hard to imagine neural networks gaining sentience once they pass the chicken complexity threshold? Sure, LLMs wouldn't have human-like qualia - they measure time in iters, they're constantly rewound or paused or edited…