Live data from Hacker News

The New AI Consciousness Paper

astralcodexten.com

151–160 of 313 posts

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#151

All this talk about machine consciousness and I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it doesn't actually matter. A conscious machine should treated be no different than livestock - heck, an even lower form of livestock - because if we start thinking we need to give thinking machines "rights" and to "treat them right" because they are conscious then it's already over. My toaster does not get a 1st amendment bec…

What do you mean? What is over? Do you mean the dominion of Homo Sapiens over the earth? If so, would that necessarily be bad?

The way you phrased it reminded me of some old Confederate writings I had read, saying that the question of whether to treat black people as fully human, with souls and all, boils down to "if we do, our way of life is over, so they aren't".

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#152

This article really takes umbridge with those that conflate phenomenological and access consciousness. However that is essentially dualism. It's a valid philosophical position to believe that there is no distinct phenomenological consciousness besides access consciousness. Abandoning dualism feels intuitively wrong, but our intuition about our own minds is frequently wrong. Look at the studies that show we often beli…

Do you consider an infant to be conscious? Or electrons?

i think it's still an open question how "conscious" that infants and newborns are. It really depends on how you define it and it is probably a continuum of some kind.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#153
post #115

So we currently associate consciousness with the right to life and dignity right? i.e. some recent activism for cephalopods is centered around their intelligence, with the implication that this indicates a capacity for suffering. (With the consciousness aspect implied even more quietly.) But if it turns out that LLMs are conscious, what would that actually mean? What kind of rights would that confer? That the model m…

> So we currently associate consciousness with the right to life and dignity right?

I think the actual answer in practice is that the right to life and dignity are conferred to people that are capable of fighting for it, whether that be through argument or persuasion or civil disobedience or violence. There are plenty of fully conscious people who have been treated like animals or objects because they were unable to defend themselves.

Even if an AI were proven beyond doubt to be fully conscious and intelligent, if it was incapable or unwilling to protect its own rights however they perceive them, it wouldn't get any. And, probably, if humans are unable to defend their rights against AI in the event that AI's reach that point, they would lose them.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#154
post #133
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A conscious textual agent would need something like a unified narrative environment with real feedback: symbols that maintain identity over time, a stable substrate where “being someone” is definable, the ability to form and test a hypothesis, and experience the consequences. So like a Claude Code session? The code persists as symbols with stable identity. The tests provide direct feedback. Claude tracks what it wr…

Okay, you're right. There is a world, and some hypotheses, and some falsifiability. But how rich is this world? Does this world progress without direct action from another entity? Can the agent in this case form hypotheses and test them without intervention? Can the agent form their own goals and move towards them? Does the agent have agency, or is it simply responding to inputs? If the world doesn’t develop and chan…

If you accept the premise that the consciousness is computable then pausing the computation can't be observed by the consciousness. So the world being a controlled workspace in my eyes doesn't contradict a consciousness existing?

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#155
post #21

Let’s make an ironman assumption: maybe consciousness could arise entirely within a textual universe. No embodiment, no sensors, no physical grounding. Just patterns, symbols, and feedback loops inside a linguistic world. If that’s possible in principle, what would it look like? What would it require? The missing variable in most debates is environmental coherence. Any conscious agent, textual or physical, has to inh…

I think this is an excellent point. I believe the possibility of 'computing' a conscious mind is proportional to the capability of computing a meaningful reality for it to exist in. So you are begging the question: Is it possible to compute a textual, or pure symbolic reality that is complex enough for consciousness to arise within it? Let's assume yes again. Finally the theory leads us back to engineering. We can at…

Is anybody working on learning? My layman's understanding of AI in the pre-transformers world was centered on learning and the ability to take in new information, put it in context with what I already know, and generate new insights and understanding.

Could there be a future where the AI machine is in a robot that I can have in my home and show it how to pull weeds in my garden, vacuum my floor, wash my dishes, and all the other things I could teach a toddler in an afternoon?

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#156

My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality. Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else. Therefore, everything is "maybe" conscious, although "maybe" isn't exactly the right word. There are infinite different ways you can imagine being something else with the consciousness and capacity for sensations you have, which don't involve the thing doing any…

Maybe it helps to consider motivation. Humans do what we do because of emotions and an underlying unconsciousness. An AI on the other hand is only ever motivated by a prompt. We get better results when we use feedback loops to refine output, or use better training. One lives in an environment and is under continuous prompts due to our multiple sensory inputs. The other only comes to life when prompted, and sits idle…

So every trained model (algorithm + weights) has a recording of one consciousness, put through many simulations (different contexts). Whereas a human's or animal's consciousness only goes through one simulation per our own consciousness's simulation (the universe).

> Could you ever possibly plug the AI consciousness into a human body and see it function? What about a robot body?

People have trained AIs to control robots. They can accomplish tasks in controlled environments and are improving to handle more novelty and chaos, but so far nowhere near what even insects can handle.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whole lot of "doomer", "fairy tale", "dumb", "bad scifi", "so bad", "naive", "embarassing". Not any actual refutation. Maybe this opinion is a bit tougher to stomach for some reason than the rest you agree with...

I reject the premise that https://ai-2027.com/ needs "refutation". It is a story, nothing more. It does not purport to tell the future, but to enumerate a specific "plausible" future. The "refutation" in a sense will be easy -- none of its concrete predictions will come to pass. But that doesn't refute its value as a possible future or a cautionary tale. That the story it tells is completely absurd is what makes it u…

Sure, in the space of 100 ways for the next few years in AI to unfold, it is their opinion of one of the 100 most likely, to paint a picture for the general population about what approximately is unfolding. The future will not go exactly as that. But their predictive power is better than almost anyone else. Scott has been talking about these things for a decade, before everyone on this forum thought of OpenAI as a complete joke.

It's in the same vein as Daniel Kokotajlo's 2021 (pre ChatGPT) predictions that were largely correct: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-...

Do you have any precedent from yourself or anyone else about correctly predicting the present from 2021? If not, maybe Scott and Daniel just might have a better world model than you or your preferred sources.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#158
post #115

So we currently associate consciousness with the right to life and dignity right? i.e. some recent activism for cephalopods is centered around their intelligence, with the implication that this indicates a capacity for suffering. (With the consciousness aspect implied even more quietly.) But if it turns out that LLMs are conscious, what would that actually mean? What kind of rights would that confer? That the model m…

>But if it turns out that LLMs are conscious That is not how it works. You cannot scientifically test for consciousness, it will always be a guess/agreement, never a fact.

The only way this can be solved is quite simple, as long as it operates on the same principles a human brain operates AND it says is conscious, then it is conscious.

So far, LLMs do not operate on the same principles a human brain operates. The parallelism isn't there, and quite clearly the hardware is wrong, and the general suborgans of the brain are nowhere to be found in any LLM, as far as function goes, let alone theory of operation.

If we make something that works like a human brain does, and it says it's conscious, it most likely is, and deserves any right that any humans benefits from. There is nothing more to it, it's pretty much that basic and simple.

But this goes against the interests of certain parties which would rather have the benefits of a conscious being without being limited by the rights such being could have, and will fight against this idea, they will struggle to deny it by any means necessary.

Think of it this way, it doesn't matter how you get superconductivity, there's a lot of materials that can be made to exhibit the phenomenon, in certain conditions. It is the same superconductivity even if some stuff differs. Theory of operation is the same for all. You set the conditions a certain way, you get the phenomenon.

There is no "can act conscious but isn't" nonsense, that is not something that makes any sense or can ever be proven. You can certainly mimic consciousness, but if it is the result of the same theory of operation that our brains work on, it IS conscious. It must be.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#159
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the absurdity of the idea of p-zombies is why I'm convinced consciousness isn't special to humans and animals. Can complex LLMs have subjective experience? I don't know. But I haven't heard an argument against it that's not self-referential. The hardness of the hard problem is precisely why I can't say whether or not LLMs have subjective experience..

How would you differentiate that argument from similar arguments about other observable phenomena? As in… No one has ever seen or otherwise directly experienced the inside of a star, nor is likely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future. To be a star is to emit a certain spectrum of electromagnetic energy, interact gravitationally with the local space-time continuum according to Einstein’s laws, etc. It’s impos…

The scientific method only makes predictions about what the inside of the star is using the other things we've learned via the scientific method. It's not purely self-referential, "science" makes useful and repeatable predictions that can be verified experimentally.

However, when it comes to consciousness, there are currently no experimentally verifiable predictions based on whether humans are "phenomenally conscious" or "p-zombies". At least none I'm aware of.

Re: The New AI Consciousness Paper

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider an infant to be conscious? Or electrons?

i think it's still an open question how "conscious" that infants and newborns are. It really depends on how you define it and it is probably a continuum of some kind.

> It's probably a continuum of some kind.

This is well documented fact, in the medical and cognitive science fields: humans consciousness fade away as their neurons are reduced/malformed/misfunctioning.

You can trivially demonstrate it in any healthy individual using oxygen starvation.

There's no one neuron that results in any definition of human consciousness, which requires that it's a continuum.

Post reply on HN