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

Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#811

Post by haswell »

dtj1123 wrote: post #682
haswell wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's any reason to take seriously the idea that AI is conscious, we must then take seriously the idea that many other non-living things are conscious. Unless the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity or information density, why would AI be any more or less conscious than my toaster? It seems to me that it's far more likely that everything is conscious than it is that AI is somehow…

The argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of a specific kind of complexity.

But what kind of complexity is that? And why would we conclude that AI has it while other incredibly complex systems (e.g. earth’s habitats, the universe itself) does not?

I’m far more open to the idea that many systems are conscious than the idea that this current generation of LLMs is somehow special.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#812

Post by Jensson »

Jtarii wrote: post #719
stabbles wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A medicine for those who anthropomorphize LLMs is to run the LLMs deterministically (without randomness and memory files). It feels very unnatural to get the same conversation verbatim at a different point in time.

Humans are also subject to determinism, there is just no way to put a brain back to the exact same starting conditions.

There is, you talk to an Alzheimer patient and its like that, and it doesn't feel like talking to a human any more. An Alzheimer patient isn't cured by adding some input noise to stop them from repeating conversations, they are still unable to learn, just like an LLM.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#813

Post by Sankozi »

jvanderbot wrote: post #220
Waterluvian wrote: post #164

I think about Star Trek: TNG’s “Measure of a Man” a lot lately. We can be so confident to decide what is and isn’t alive from vibes alone. The conclusion I’m currently at is that I don’t know and probably can’t ever know. Maybe you’re all philosophical zombies. Maybe I am one too! But at some point we will get close enough that it hopefully becomes obvious that we must tread carefully. The entire episode is incredibl…

I think about this from the other end. It cannot be considered a conscious being. There just isn't a world in which we should start to think of a machine using ethics we reserve for humans. AI is essentially infinitely reproducible at zero cost, and won't suffer from decay etc. There's not scarcity to preserve. So, I'd turn off an AI in a moment to save property or real possessions or money. I'd sacrifice property an…

Zero cost? How did you reached that estimate?

Training AI is often more costly than supporting human from birth till death. Just sustaining frontier LLM model on necessary hardware costs more than living in first world countries.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#814

Post by jmull »

Sankozi wrote: post #797
jmull wrote: post #728

We'd need a good definition of consciousness to get anywhere on this. I suspect such a definition would include agency, which includes desires and goals for the self. LLMs don't seem to have agency, and seem unlikely to get it since they are specifically engineered to do as told. No doubt someone is trying, as we speak, to do just this. But I doubt the effort will be large -- LLMs are engineered to do as told because…

Lots of discussions about consciousness yet no useful definition. All fall into one (or more) categories: - not observable (feelings, agency etc) - not useful (spiritual definitions, definitions that degrade into consciousness = being human/animal)

Agency is entirely observable.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#815

Post by Lerc »

haswell wrote: post #534
sega_sai wrote: post #425

When the consciousness itself not understood and well defined in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if something is or isn't conscious. And here in particular the reasoning behind the argument is bizarre. Decomposing the complex activity into simple steps like 'predicting the next word' and claiming that surely can't have consciousness. A similar argument would be -- there is no way that movements of e…

If there's any reason to take seriously the idea that AI is conscious, we must then take seriously the idea that many other non-living things are conscious. Unless the argument is that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity or information density, why would AI be any more or less conscious than my toaster? It seems to me that it's far more likely that everything is conscious than it is that AI is somehow…

>If there's any reason to take seriously the idea that AI is conscious, we must then take seriously the idea that many other non-living things are conscious.

That, I believe is why the objection to AI exists, that conclusion is unacceptable.

It seems like we are experiencing "Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" all over again.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#816

Post by indoordin0saur »

gobdovan wrote: post #27
speak_plainly wrote: post #19

“Counsciousness” is the ultimate moving goalpost, and historically, it’s been one of humanity’s most effective intellectual weapons. An indefinable black box we intentionally gatekeep to draw an arbitrary line between ‘us’ and ‘them’. I don’t know if AI is conscious or not, and I honestly don’t know what it even means to be conscious. historically, by claiming a monopoly on it, we’ve successfully manufactured the phi…

> I honestly don’t know what it even means to be conscious > subjugate other cultures (assuming you mean they're not conscious in other's minds) Have you ever considered you might be a philosophical zombie? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

I notice certain philosophers seem completely baffled by anyone being interested in the "hard problem" of conscious and things like qualia. A good example is Daniel Dennet. He seems to understand what qualia is but can't seem to understand why there's anything unique about the phenomena. I also see similar opinions expressed here in the comments. I've often wondered if a certain portion of the population are in some sort of philosophical zombie state and they equate consciousness with simple things like being awake and able to respond to stimuli.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#817

Post by mbesto »

rickydroll wrote: post #505
dpweb wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of anthropomorphism is not we elevate the machines, it's that we debase humanity. I also think different ideas get conflated. It may be possible to build a machine that is super-human in the sense it can outperform the human brain in all kinds of measurable ways. Does not imply it possesses all the same qualities of the brain. I respect a number of things Anthropic has published about the ethical issues at…

I think humanity deserves to be debased in part because it's awfully egocentric and insist on being special in the universe. There are numerous times when humanity's been debased. Copernicus, Kepler, Darwin, and the infinite number of animal behaviorists who have defined and documented consciousness And how it manifests in primates, parrots, dogs, cetaceans, and insects. (I just love the bumble bees taking time off f…

> It takes humans a really long time to accept the fact they are no longer as special

We ARE special because we determined we are special. Name another animal that can determine it's also special or more special than us?

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#818

Post by adampunk »

freehorse wrote: post #588
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its still bunch of instructions. So is your brain. That's the problem with this argument.

The brain is (part of) an allostatic system and part of a living organism which reproduces itself constantly. Certainly not "a bunch of instructions".

To take this seriously we must extend consciousness to nearly all of the tree of life.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#819

Post by ch4s3 »

boppo1 wrote: post #810
achow wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is perhaps very relevant what Chris Olah (Anthropic co-founder) said to pope.. I am a scientist. I lead a research team that studies the internal structure of these models—what is actually happening inside them. And I will be honest: we keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling. We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience. We find evidence of introspection. We find internal states…

Yeah that reeks of marketing to me. This guy may believe all those things, but his getting paid may also depend upon his believing them.

This is an incredibly strong claim and I’ve never seen any particularly strong evidence for them beyond “trust me, I’ve seen into the abyss.”

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#820

Post by indoordin0saur »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #28
speak_plainly wrote: post #19

“Counsciousness” is the ultimate moving goalpost, and historically, it’s been one of humanity’s most effective intellectual weapons. An indefinable black box we intentionally gatekeep to draw an arbitrary line between ‘us’ and ‘them’. I don’t know if AI is conscious or not, and I honestly don’t know what it even means to be conscious. historically, by claiming a monopoly on it, we’ve successfully manufactured the phi…

Can you give some historical examples of people moving the goalposts around consciousness? I agree, perhaps, for aspects of "intelligence" but I can't think of any examples of it with regard to consciousness proper.

I think people like this are mixing up the hard and soft problems of consciousness. The soft problems are things like figuring out what causes the brain to be awake, retain memories and respond to stimuli. Those can all be all be approached in a scientific way. The hard problem, as far as I can tell, is still far out of reach of scientific understanding.
Post reply on HN