Live data from Hacker News

Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

economist.com

111–120 of 381 posts

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#111
We have no problem confining tens of billions of sentient beings to unsanitary, crowded conditions where they can barely stand, never see daylight, and suffer severe psychological and physiological stress. Then we put them on a giant conveyor belt to be killed (and they have the cognitive ability to anticipate that death and feel fear).

...Just because we like the taste of a chicken burger. Perhaps we should start with that before we worry if our computer can also scream.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#112

LLMs are trained to produce outputs that humans would find reasonable. That's it. They don't do anything else. To say they have feelings and that they can think/reason is insane.

It's becoming increasingly head-in-the-sand to make statements like this. Not that I'm saying LLMs are conscious. But to completely ignore the possibility of emergent properties in systems this complex is kind of simple.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#113

Quoting from the Permutation City by Greg Egan: "Opponents replied that when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed – no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur?"

Yet when you model an Enigma machine, it does encrypt and decrypt messages.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#115

It's hard to read this article and keep track of all the philosophical confusions at once. Whether or not something is conscious (has subjective experience) is independent of whether humans care about it. Whether or not something is a moral patient (an entity worthy of consideration by moral agents) is independent of both human care and consciousness. Of course, we might try to argue that consciousness implies moral…

> It would imply that it's morally permissible to torture a sentient being as long as no human cares about it.

Yes, I agree. To me it reads as an apology to sociopathy.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#116

If I understand the central argument, which is confusingly stated, the claim is that "consciousness" is a socially-determined, subjective, descriptor for certain things that one cares about. How does this make any sense? If I care about my teddy bear enough it'll gain consciousness?

I think there is a point there, in that people have refused to attribute consciousness experience to _actual human beings_ at various times when it suited their ends.

I think it's more that consciousness can be _ignored_ in subjects that you don't care about, rather than that you consciousness can be realistically attributed to subjects that you do care about, but even then people attribute consciousness to "nature" or even the universe as a whole, or if you want to stretch the argument, quite a lot of religious belief is exactly attributing consciousness to abstract entities.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#117
post #106

> I have come to believe, however, that we have this backwards. As intelligent, social entities, we decide (or, to some degree, our evolutionary history has decided for us) which other entities we regard as having inner lives and being worthy of care. We do not care for others because they are conscious. Rather, we believe they are conscious when and because we care about them. I care about my plants and I don't thin…

Aren't your plants to a degree conscious though - they're living things striving towards something, either happily or tragically. If you model them to yourself as just mechanisms, there's a part of them that's missing, not just by some poetic fallacy, but a deficiency of real scientific understanding - hence, biology.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#118
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you could create a church of your teddy bear and, with some grit, you could get people to widely assign consciousness to it That's not really the same as it having actual consciousness, even if people will wind up treating it similarly though Humans have consciousness whether or not anyone believes we do Or at least I do. I don't really know about the rest of you. I prefer to believe that you all have conscious…

> That's not really the same as it having actual consciousness, It's trivially easy to come up with definitions of consciousness that support your point. But there isn't one of them that it is trivially singular and above all others from a scientific point of view. If you say, "I know consciousness when I see it," you are just making the point that consciousness is attributed by the beholder. Idem if you affirm "I'm…

I once had a 2 day long argument in work slack with the CEO of my company over whether a thermostat is conscious.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#120
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can prove other people are conscious off the assumption that you yourself are conscious I'm being a bit pedantic here, but no I don't think that "I am conscious therefore you must be too" is true I think you can claim that it is most reasonable to assume other people are conscious but I don't think it reaches the level of proof

I don't think you're being pedantic. The person you're replying to seems like he wants to cut off the solipsistic argument; the only thing we can be sure of is our own consciousness, everything else is debateable. So while I know I am conscious, I do not know that everything I experience aren't just impulses fed to my brain by some external force. And I can't prove it either way. I have no way to test whether or not…

>And I can't prove it either way.

Not true. This is "provable" aspects of you and your personality can be changed by physical changes to the brain. There are thousands of instances of this including experiments that verify this.

While you can't "prove" this simply by observing this phenomenon among other people that level of "proof" is impossible. You technically can't prove anything and what we see with physical changes to the brain visibly influencing personality and behavior meets a reasonable criterion without getting too pedantic.

Post reply on HN