Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 363 posts

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#301

Post by naasking »

intended wrote: post #269
persnickety wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument got long in the tooth, but suffice to say that you can analyze a human in exactly the same way, breaking one down to the basic physics and chemistry (and what does "artificial" mean, anyway?). Then there's the concept of panpsychism.

I would very strongly urge people to actually work and build tools with LLMs. Its readily apparent after a point that the previous poster is correct, and that these are simply tools. They are impressive tools yes. But life they are not. At best, they are mimics.

> But life they are not. At best, they are mimics

A mimicry of fire is not fire because fire is a reaction between matter. A mimicry of intelligence may well be intelligence, because intelligence is just information processing.

We're not talking here about "life", but intelligence and "internal life", aka feelings, thoughts, etc.

Edit: as for the argument that "LLMs are simply tools", it has been quite easy for our ancestors to also dehumanize other people and treat them as tools. That was a core justification of slavery. This is simply not a convincing argument that LLMs lack an internal life. People fool themselves all of the time.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#302

Post by naasking »

smoldesu wrote: post #230
naasking wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious I'm curious how you know this. Certainly an LLM doesn't have human internal life, but to claim it has no internal life exceeds our state of knowledge on these topics. We simply lack a mechanistic model of qualia from which we can draw such conclusions.

An LLM is math. It outputs text. Those things aren't alive, and both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial. Once you get that out of the way, sure, I guess it could be "alive" per the same loose definition that any electrical system can exist in an actuated state. It's software, though. I don't think it's profound or overly confident to say that we very clearly know these systems are inanimate…

Yes, an LLM is math. Particle physics is also math, and that makes up all of existence. Furthermore, I'm not sure why "artificiality" has any bearing on the question of whether something is alive, whatever that means.

I'm also not even sure why you're talking about "alive" or "inanimate". From context it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc., not some ability to procreate, or even necessarily some continuity of existence.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#303

Post by naasking »

Planktonne wrote: post #283
naasking wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you managed any kind of conversation with a clock before? Because you can actually have an intelligent conversation with an LLM. I think that's a pretty compelling case that it's not just swimming in the dominant paradigm.

People thought they were having intelligent conversations with Eliza; people even have satisfying emotional conversations with teddy bears. It's not a good measurement.

> People thought they were having intelligent conversations with Eliza

Sure, but who has had a good conversation with a clock?

> people even have satisfying emotional conversations with teddy bears.

No they don't. Kids know very well that they're pretending to have conversations. The people who actually hear teddy bears speak also know that that's not normal, and we all know that this is a cognitive distortion.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#304

Post by mirekrusin »

zhynn wrote: post #54
mirekrusin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that ie. paralyzed people don't have consciousness?

There is a spectrum between conscious and unconscious. You could say that under general anesthesia you are a 0/10 on the conscious scale, asleep is 1 or 2, just woken from sleep is maybe 3.... and up to a well rested, well fed, healthy sober adult human near the top of the scale. These are common sense notions of objective consciousness and they are testable and noncontroversial outside of a philosophy argument. Does…

People dream under general anesthesia, which is a form of consciousness.

I don't think ie. Stephen Hawking was on "lower spectrum of consciousness" either.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#305

Post by mirekrusin »

bena wrote: post #34
mirekrusin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that ie. paralyzed people don't have consciousness?

First of all, paralyzed people do have bodies. And sensorimotor functions. Second of all, it wouldn't matter if individually they did or did not. The species does and now our species has developed consciousness. It's part of the package. If you wanted a counterexample, you should look to plant life. There is some discussion on whether or not plant systems have a form on consciousness. But, then again, plants have bod…

What about people with amputations or missing body parts due to genetics - are they less conscious?

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#306

Post by Planktonne »

naasking wrote: post #303
Planktonne wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People thought they were having intelligent conversations with Eliza; people even have satisfying emotional conversations with teddy bears. It's not a good measurement.

> People thought they were having intelligent conversations with Eliza Sure, but who has had a good conversation with a clock ? > people even have satisfying emotional conversations with teddy bears. No they don't. Kids know very well that they're pretending to have conversations. The people who actually hear teddy bears speak also know that that's not normal, and we all know that this is a cognitive distortion.

> we all know that this is a cognitive distortion.

This is also true of those who form emotional attachments with current AI. The people developing romantic relationships with Replika etc. aren't engaging in healthy behaviour.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#307

Post by slibhb »

naasking wrote: post #227
slibhb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a simple computer, speaker, and accelerometer, you can build a device that says "ouch" when you drop it. Does it feel pain? My point is that there are good reasons to believe that a hypothetical LLM that can pass a Turing test is a philosophical zombie, i.e. it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious. Whether that distinction is important is another que…

> it can mimic human behavior but doesn't have an internal life, feelings, emotions, and isn't conscious I'm curious how you know this. Certainly an LLM doesn't have human internal life, but to claim it has no internal life exceeds our state of knowledge on these topics. We simply lack a mechanistic model of qualia from which we can draw such conclusions.

From that perspective, we can't say that a rock lacks an internal life. That seems silly to me. Perhaps we can't know but we can approach certainty.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#308

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

intelkishan wrote: post #238
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that for some reason and by some unknown agency, somebody in 1068 could build something that was functionally equivalent to one of the contemporary LLMs of today (it would likely be mechanical and thus slower, but let's just ignore speed because that's mostly a substrate artifact). OK, time to train up our LLM. Oops. Printing not yet invented. Books are scarce, and frequently not copied. We have almost no inp…

A common counterargument is that organisms already have information stored in their DNA, which in turn has a noticeable impact on their behaviour. Plus the fact that they receive a large amount of sensory data which is often discounted in such debates.

OK, so LLM's (a) have no pre-wiring (b) have no sensory connection but they can still spit out remarkably good language, and thus they must be a good model for humans and animals?

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#309

Post by karmakurtisaani »

djmips wrote: post #128
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #39

Nice article, great presentation. However, it's a bit annoying that the focus of the AI anxiety is how AI is replacing us and the resolution is that we embrace our humanity. Fair enough, but at least to me the main focus in my AI anxiety is that it will take my job - honestly don't really care about it doing my shitty art.

Your job is your art.

I live in Europe, so my job is just my job.

Re: Is my toddler a stochastic parrot?

#310

Post by intended »

naasking wrote: post #301
intended wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would very strongly urge people to actually work and build tools with LLMs. Its readily apparent after a point that the previous poster is correct, and that these are simply tools. They are impressive tools yes. But life they are not. At best, they are mimics.

> But life they are not. At best, they are mimics A mimicry of fire is not fire because fire is a reaction between matter. A mimicry of intelligence may well be intelligence, because intelligence is just information processing. We're not talking here about "life", but intelligence and "internal life", aka feelings, thoughts, etc. Edit: as for the argument that "LLMs are simply tools", it has been quite easy for our a…

I havent read it, but Blindsight did a very good job of explaining LLMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)

I am saying that LLMs DONT process information, not the way people are implying.

The best I can suggest is to please try building with an LLM. Its very hard to explain the nuance, and I am not the only one struggling with it.

Post reply on HN