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

Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 381 posts

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#181

Post by GPerson »

mannykannot wrote: post #171
GPerson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does” If in responding to its inputs it experiences consciousness (=lights are on, experiences senses, perceives qualia), then you’ve built a brain. If your model simulates all the processing of a but does not have these then you have what’s fairly called a simulation of a brain. You can assert there is no such thing but good luck gettin…

> You can assert there is no such thing... No such thing as what? As far as I can tell, I have asserted no such thing as there being no such thing, whatever it is.

“you will also hold that when you have digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does, then you have built a brain.”

What is this then?

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#182

Post by Terr_ »

aqfamnzc wrote: post #142
montroser wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the book, but the author, yes.

Not the LLM, but the training material, yes.

An important distinction, because I worry about this circular-reasoning loop:

1. "LLMs have empathy since they write empathetic things."

2. "How do you know its their own empathy?"

3. "LLMs are authors, just like humans are."

4. "How do you know that they are that kind of author?"

5. [GOTO 1]

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#183

Post by ratelimitsteve »

mannykannot wrote: post #135
ratelimitsteve wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that if it encrypts and decrypts, then you've built an enigma machine, not modeled it.

Then, presumably, you will also hold that when you have digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does, then you have built a brain. Tendentiously redefining the word "simulation" in an attempt to avoid the awkward cases is not going to save an argument that was dead on arrival.

I will indeed hold that, and it was my point to go to against post you were replying to and bolster your position. They try to make a point about modeling but they back it up by talking about virtually modeling real, physical processes. If I model a hurricane with a computer nothing gets wet. If I model a hurricane with giant fans and sprinklers then things do get wet and, if I'm able to achieve a certain level of fidelity with my giant fans and sprinklers then whether or not i've made a hurricane is a rather arbitrary distinction as your living room is several blocks from where it was yesterday regardless of whether it was put there by a real hurricane or a mere model.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#184

Post by nkrisc »

Noaidi wrote: post #115
fasterik wrote: post #83

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.

No, not necessarily so. But arguing for the existence of objective morality that stretches across the entire universe seems to be a huge stretch.

For what it’s worth, my subjective sense of morality is opposed to torture.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#185

Post by arionhardison »

hadlock wrote: post #167
arionhardison wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hit me hard, I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm not sure it's what makes "us human" its what makes humans (us) better than other species. It was intelligence, this was used to create distinction between us and other living beings, different races etc... Now its kind of gone; in some ways. Loss of meaning, purpose, place etc... The one thing we used as a ranking metric is now a commodity, so....? I…

It might be time to take a sabbatical

Why and from what? Because you feel my statement was incoherent or because you believe the general conceit is flawed?

Edit: I am not in anyway trying to be obtuse or reductive, I simply want to understand your statement. Apologies if it comes across that way.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#186

Post by gqgs »

basilikum wrote: post #156
jampekka wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it insane? We have no idea how or where consciousness arises, or even if it's a coherent concept.

We don't know a lot of things. That does not make it sensible to just make up unfounded claims about them. I don't know what you ate today. It would be insane for me to confidently claim that you ate two bananas and a pizza today. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's the basis of empirical research.

Who exactly are these people confidently claiming that stones possess consciousness you are talking about?

I've read a number of panpsychist publications, yet I have yet to encounter an author who asserts with certainty that stones are conscious exactly in the same way human beings are.

The more common panpsychist interpretation, that everything exists on a spectrum of consciousness, with stones at the low end and humans at the high end, seems like a fairly reasonable ontological hypothesis to me.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#187

Post by mcmcmc »

arionhardison wrote: post #185
hadlock wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be time to take a sabbatical

Why and from what? Because you feel my statement was incoherent or because you believe the general conceit is flawed? Edit: I am not in anyway trying to be obtuse or reductive, I simply want to understand your statement. Apologies if it comes across that way.

> Loss of meaning, purpose, place etc... The one thing we used as a ranking metric is now a commodity, so....? I don't even know how to finish that. So why care, why work...shit just why?

This sounds a bit like depression, I think they’re genuinely concerned for your wellbeing

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#188

Post by Der_Einzige »

fasterik wrote: post #83

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…

Actually good philosophical analysis on HN and it's the top upvoted comment? A rare W for the users of this website.

Re: Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

#190

Post by Der_Einzige »

seethishat wrote: post #86

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.

Not if you believe in a computational/functional theory of mind, and very smart people like Daniel Dennett believed exactly that!

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

Post reply on HN