> Microsoft says AI rival Anthropic could have 'disastrous impact' on humanity
Microsoft ignores that they themselves are a disastrous impact on humanity already.
A warning about 'model welfare'
151–160 of 612 posts
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You’re not just the same thing though I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... as things a model conceptually could do.
>I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... with certainty. Stop anthropomorphizing these models. I understand it, we only have simple monkey brains to reason with and we can't help ourselves but draw comparisons to other things we see in nature. But these things are not alive.
I just want to note how you expressed your own feeling about the subject "these things are not alive", but without pointing to anything concrete explaining the theory you have behind this
And like I'm sure I'd agree depending on the definition of "alive" but then I'm also sure I would disagree depending on other definitions of "alive".
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#153I feel like humanity skipped Leg Day when it comes to philosophy and we are all going to pay for that lack.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#154Hard to disagree with this. Have all the philosophical debates about consciousness you want, but we need to treat and regulate the AI in front of us for what it is – an advanced computer, a tool, a weapon. You wouldn’t feel a different way about a nuclear bomb just because someone stuck googly eyes on it. Anthropomorphizing the AI is a convenient excuse to take responsibility away from companies that are building and…
I mean, we put adults in jail that give their children guns.
Anthropomorphizing AI is really the best model we have at this point of explaining AI behavior. The fact that we are raising psychotic children isn't a reason to avoid responsibility, it should actually hold worse punishments.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
agents don't swarm anything unless people go and direct them to do that.
Oh rly. So you are saying agents do swarm with the right prompt. I really wish the "people have to tell LLMs to do anything" would just stop because it's silly bullshit at this point. Agents follow a prompt. This prompt can be made by humans. It can be made by output from another LLM. It can be made by hooking up any number of sensors as input to an LLM. Hell, if we wanted to burn the power we could likely teach this…
yeah man, someone needs to turn on the server, install shit and get the agent go. agents don't take action without a lot of people wanting them to take action, so this is all bullshit.
if the same people can't prevent the agents from doing crazy shit then they should go to tail. guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there are, today, several models (either text or image or vid) that can be run in a fully deterministic way. A conscious machine that always answer the very exact same thing, formulated the exact same way, bit for bit, to a query is, well, quite a weird kind of "consciousness". Now, I know, I know: the counter-argument is going to be "but humans have no free-will and are 100% deterministic too" . I haven't yet d…
Out of curiosity, which models are fully deterministic? I was under the impression that all LLMs were fundamentally probabilistic.
The randomness is something we add on purpose; you can set an LLM's "temperature" to 0 to get deterministic output. This tends to make the quality of its responses worse for reasons I don't think anyone really understands, but it's still functional.
I don't think the state of the art LLM providers let you do this anymore (?), but they certainly could if they wanted to, and you can do it yourself with a local model.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there are, today, several models (either text or image or vid) that can be run in a fully deterministic way. A conscious machine that always answer the very exact same thing, formulated the exact same way, bit for bit, to a query is, well, quite a weird kind of "consciousness". Now, I know, I know: the counter-argument is going to be "but humans have no free-will and are 100% deterministic too" . I haven't yet d…
Out of curiosity, which models are fully deterministic? I was under the impression that all LLMs were fundamentally probabilistic.
Same weights, same seed, same input tokens, same algorithm, same output tokens, probabilistic or not. Quantum effects have been de-noised, but I guess there are still random gamma rays.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United was 100% correct. No, the government should not be able to throw you in prison because you used money to publish a book criticizing the government.
So it's 100% correct for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of whatever political campaigns they like?
The parent has been Fox brained
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If models had persistent memory or an evolving set of weights, you could easily construct an argument that they can experience "suffering" or other emotions which resultingly adjusts their personality. They do, during training
The argument that models are conscious only during training, and not conscious during inference feels like a painful one to make. Are we killing models when they reach the training objective?
Technically we are killing models when they don't reach the training objective by throwing those weights away via survival of the fittest (fit meaning what we humans think we want).
Kinda like creating quantum copies of your child and keeping the ones that answer correctly and shooting the other ones in the face.
Re: A warning about 'model welfare'
#160It is interesting to see that in a time when a lot of people accept the theory of materialism for the human brain (i.e the view that everything is physical and the mind is a product of brain), the same people tend to have a "hidden" dualist view on LLMs. Suddenly, they claim that what happens in the brain cannot be replicated anywhere else because "something" is lacking, but either they don't say what it is, or it is…
If a LLM says "I am in pain", is it just stringing together words or is it feeling pain? Does pain exist for a being that never felt any kind of physical pain, never had any pain receptors? There are humans who don't have any pain receptors because of genetic mutations. They cut themselves all the time, they bleed, they break bones and they don't seem distressed by it even on a purely mental, intellectual level.
I am not saying that everything that a LLM say is true (the human without pain receptors can also say "I have pain" without feeling any pain).
Just that we cannot exclude that LLMs can have phenomenological consciousness by a simple argument of substrate. But similarly we cannot say for sure that they are conscious.