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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by Taek »

slopinthebag wrote: post #78
Taek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another weird thing that keeps coming up - "people don't think that image models or chess models are conscious"... yes we do, and we have for many years. Or rather, we aren't *certain* that those things are conscious. But the idea that they might be is not strange.

Unless you believe everything is conscious (panpsychism), this seems like you're just drawing arbitrary lines around things you personally believe could be conscious. Is a rock conscious? If stockfish could be conscious, so could a rock.

Can you define a clear boundary for me somewhere between a rock and a human brain at which consciousness is definitely not possible on one side of the boundary, but is maybe possible on the other side of the boundary?

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

#112

Post by i5heu »

Taek wrote: post #110
i5heu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not even need a transformer. A specific pattern of self-referencing data could be seen (or not) as low-level consciousness in the future, when we know what consciousness exactly is. It might be that stockfish is already something future scientists would define as "conscious". Altough it is diffucult for me to Imagine that specific example.

Yes I agree. We have such a poor understanding of consciousness that really we can't even rule out whether a simple set of if-else statements is enough to create consciousness. Common sense says "surely not"... But where is the exact point at which "surely not" becomes "well maybe..."? I haven't been able to find a satisfying answer to that question, which forces me to assume (at least until a satisfying answer is fo…

I’ve seen definitions that I like they where in the direction of „if a system can recognize a problem it has not encountered before and can attempt to solve it with onto the problem adapted solutions, then it is conscious“

But then again this is just a external crude form of test that can lead to something like „light bulbs emit warmth, so fire must be a light bulb“

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

#113

Post by NopIdoN »

handoflixue wrote: post #94
mhurron wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure who this kind of thing is aimed at My guess would be it is aimed at those who are falling for the marketing from the AI companies that these LLM's are far more than they are. That they are 'intelligent' that they have 'emerging human like properties because of that intelligence.'

We're really moving the goal posts on "Intelligence" now that passing the Turing test, writing a poem, writing code, creating a painting, driving a car, and solving multiple Erdos problems all no longer qualify. I' genuinely wondering if people are even bothering to come up with new goal posts now? Is there any miracle of computing that would possibly satisfy your definition? When we get a fully AI-run company that's…

You can keep adding tools to your penknife but she'll never love you back.

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

#114

Post by Taek »

i5heu wrote: post #112
Taek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I agree. We have such a poor understanding of consciousness that really we can't even rule out whether a simple set of if-else statements is enough to create consciousness. Common sense says "surely not"... But where is the exact point at which "surely not" becomes "well maybe..."? I haven't been able to find a satisfying answer to that question, which forces me to assume (at least until a satisfying answer is fo…

I’ve seen definitions that I like they where in the direction of „if a system can recognize a problem it has not encountered before and can attempt to solve it with onto the problem adapted solutions, then it is conscious“ But then again this is just a external crude form of test that can lead to something like „light bulbs emit warmth, so fire must be a light bulb“

I hope you don't mind if I get super pedantic here. But what qualifies as "a problem", and what counts as "has not encountered before" and what counts as "adapted solutions"?

Because "a problem" could be as simple as conducting heat through a lattice of atoms and "not encountered before" could be from a specific temperature hotspot that was never seen before, etc.

It's really thorny to get to the bottom of things!

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

#115

Post by NopIdoN »

Taek wrote: post #111
slopinthebag wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you believe everything is conscious (panpsychism), this seems like you're just drawing arbitrary lines around things you personally believe could be conscious. Is a rock conscious? If stockfish could be conscious, so could a rock.

Can you define a clear boundary for me somewhere between a rock and a human brain at which consciousness is definitely not possible on one side of the boundary, but is maybe possible on the other side of the boundary?

Microtubules

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

#116

Post by slopinthebag »

Taek wrote: post #111
slopinthebag wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you believe everything is conscious (panpsychism), this seems like you're just drawing arbitrary lines around things you personally believe could be conscious. Is a rock conscious? If stockfish could be conscious, so could a rock.

Can you define a clear boundary for me somewhere between a rock and a human brain at which consciousness is definitely not possible on one side of the boundary, but is maybe possible on the other side of the boundary?

I can't, can you?

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

#117

Post by slopinthebag »

red75prime wrote: post #96
slopinthebag wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."

You can easily find a rebuttal. Why do you think that consciousness is like rain and not like, say, arithmetic?

Sorry, how is arithmetic different?

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

#118

Post by soraminazuki »

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…

> the same way you might a cat or dog

That cats and dogs are sentient is a normal take. Far more normal than sentient transistors. But again, what even is normal in today's world, I wish I knew.

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

#119

Post by andai »

andai wrote: post #21

> we begin by implementing and training a neural network in Age of Empires II (AoE II) Although it might seem like a fun exercise, wholly unrelated to the topic of anthropomorphism in LLM research, we note that this immediately implies that (1) any sufficiently powerful substrate could implement an entity equivalent to an LLM Why does it imply that? That doesn't sound right to me. Unless we define "sufficiently power…

To put it another way: if you replaced your neurons with functionally equivalent ones made of something else (titanium or silicon), one by one, at which point would you stop being conscious? Which neuron is the important one?

(If each artificial neuron ran a copy of Age of Empires, and did its calculations inside of that, for comedic purposes, would this affect the equation?)

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

#120

Post by Garlef »

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…

But didn't even John Searle argue at this level when refuting the "systems response" to his chinese room argument?

Very simplified the refutal goes like this: "It would be silly to attribute consciousness to a room".

Ultimately, Searle is berating people for even arguing inside the very analogy he put up to make a point.

(... my key takeaway is that even very smart people get astonishingly dumb on this topic)

Post reply on HN