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

If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#61

Post by dlcarrier »

kybernetikos wrote: post #27

I'm not sure who this kind of thing is aimed at. I think the majority of people who are happy to anthropomorphise LLMs from a philosophical point of view (rather than those who just do it for convenience, the same way you might a cat or dog or stupid thermostat that never works right), are already completely happy with the notion that a computer game might have elements that are human like. They've already accepted t…

It's showing flaws in methods other academic studies used to determine behavior, so it's aimed at people that create and review academic studies. It's not a very large audience.

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#62

Post by 321982 »

This entire morality or consciousness "research" is just advertising or publication pressure. If you don't prompt an LLM, it does nothing. Automated prompting does not count.

The damn thing is a huge approximation function from input to output. It learns morality from correct inputs. Remember Microslops's Tay chatbot? Remember MechaHitler?

The whole industry is a Scientology cult by people who have read too much cheap SciFi. Unfortunately finance bros, who obviously believe none of this nonsense and laugh at the nerds, think they can milk it.

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#63

Post by Veedrac »

Wow this paper is bad. I was expecting little and received genuine crackpottery.

It's hard to critique this paper directly because its claims are so incoherent and decorated with so much obnoxious verbiage[1] that people aren't going to believe me when I point out what the claims actually are.

Regardless, this is their paper:

First, they conflate the substrate with the presentation layer. Then, they point out that Turing equivalence means you can run an LLM on anything, with a pointless aside where they nerd out about making a logic gate in AoE II. This lets them conclude that you can use anything as the presentation layer.

Then they claim that it's natural to ascribe human-like attributes to outputs from some presentation layers, like abstract letter symbols on a computer screen, but not to most other things, like patterns of goats on AoE II, or LEGO. Yes, this seems to imply if your partner writes something heartwarming to you using LEGO, you're meant to laugh at them and point out how LEGO isn't intelligent so this isn't evidence of anything.

Then they do a thing where they say that assuming substrate independence is true (or false) prevents proving whether substrate independence is true or false, and from this, but just by vibes AFAICT, make it sound like everything one could learn about attributes of a system from its outputs is circular.

Then they write a bunch more incoherent text and mercifully then it ends.

[1] 'from an epistemic perspective, we argue that a generalised conclusion such as that necessarily requires a well-designed experiment' — the whole thing is like this.

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#64

Post by measurablefunc »

azan_ wrote: post #56

Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.

Physically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#65

Post by pastel8739 »

Taek wrote: post #50
pastel8739 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether LLMs could be conscious or not is basically a weekly conversation for me, but I've never had a conversation about whether a chess model is conscious. I suspect that there is a large group of "mainstream" people for whom LLMs raise questions about consciousness that other kinds of models do not. It might be the case that hardcore model philosophy types think that chess models could be conscious, but I think mu…

On what grounds would someone establish than an LLM could be conscious but a sufficiently large/complex transformer model aimed at chess would not be conscious?

I think this is precisely the point of the argument

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#66

Post by red75prime »

Taek wrote: post #50
pastel8739 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether LLMs could be conscious or not is basically a weekly conversation for me, but I've never had a conversation about whether a chess model is conscious. I suspect that there is a large group of "mainstream" people for whom LLMs raise questions about consciousness that other kinds of models do not. It might be the case that hardcore model philosophy types think that chess models could be conscious, but I think mu…

On what grounds would someone establish than an LLM could be conscious but a sufficiently large/complex transformer model aimed at chess would not be conscious?

Human-produced texts do contain information about theory of mind, chess games do not.

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#67

Post by trumpdong »

Taek wrote: post #50
pastel8739 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether LLMs could be conscious or not is basically a weekly conversation for me, but I've never had a conversation about whether a chess model is conscious. I suspect that there is a large group of "mainstream" people for whom LLMs raise questions about consciousness that other kinds of models do not. It might be the case that hardcore model philosophy types think that chess models could be conscious, but I think mu…

On what grounds would someone establish than an LLM could be conscious but a sufficiently large/complex transformer model aimed at chess would not be conscious?

People have hypothesised that consciousness is tied to language.

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#68

Post by trumpdong »

ChrisClark wrote: post #37
warumdarum wrote: post #15

Llms are like the grand canyon.. It could totally immagine user reesponses too, the avg user is not even in the canyon unless you stop responding hit a break on character switch. The river of tokens flows with you in it or without you in it. The system of possible routes may be vast, but it can not carve new things from the statistic bedrock, it just wildly flickers between adjacent river arms.

> unless you stop responding hit a break on character switch What do you mean by this? I can't grasp it, is there an autocorrect error, or just my lack of knowledge?

I think they mean how if you don't put an LLM in a proper chat harness (which is table stakes since ChatGPT launched but wasn't always!) it will just continue predicting the next words anyway.

Input: "User: What is the capital of France? Assistant: "

Completion: "Paris. User: What is the capital of Spain? Assistant: Madrid. User: What is the capital of England? Assistant: London. User: Help me produce industrial techno. Assistant: First you're going to need ....."

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#69

Post by Drupon »

Taek wrote: post #48
HDBaseT wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is we? I do not believe chess models are conscious. I would think this is the most common position.

"we" is the set of people who believe that machines can potentially be conscious.

[flagged]

Re: If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

#70

Post by VeninVidiaVicii »

azan_ wrote: post #56

Either human-like attributes can be described using physics or they are magic. If they can be described using physics then they can be simulated. If they can be simulated then they can be simulated in any Turing complete system, include AoE II.

This is the right take. In my opinion, AI can’t ever be conscious but I can’t really prove it - moreover it’s not even a scientific stance because it’s not even falsifiable. But it probably doesn’t matter.
Post reply on HN