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

A warning about 'model welfare'

mustafa-suleyman.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 628 posts

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#611

Post by mitxela »

collin_of_this wrote: post #433
MiloLeo wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best theory I have heard is that subjective experience is a field of some sort (the EM field, maybe?). what would be producing the field for us to pick up? That explanation sounds no more scientific than astrology.

Think about RF engineering: the same physical antenna can be used for both TX and RX. We already know that neurons both create EM fields and are influenced by EM fields. The role of EM fields in the brain is pretty well established, I don't think particularly similar to astrology. I wouldn't claim that this theory is perfect (EM is not perfectly correlated with consciousness/experience), but there are aspects of this…

me when I was 7 and thought touching heads with my brother would let us share brain waves and have telepathy

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#612

Post by myaccountonhn »

myrmidon wrote: post #143

I have a very simple benchmark for arguments on AI ethics: Substitute black people/women/animals as subject (instead of AI). Does that make you sound like a well-known moustache wearer? Then your argument is bad and needs work. This clearly falls into that category.

My issue is that I've seen some bad takes in rationalist circles that believe in functionalism, and consciousness as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex computation.

Using that as their foundation, they've then argued that most animals are not conscious (or less conscious), but LLMs are.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#613

Post by moomin »

thaneross wrote: post #281
chuckadams wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 20-odd years later, a terrorist attack prompts Starfleet to outlaw and eradicate his entire species.

Every time I'm reminded NuTrek exists I get sad about what we've lost.

Honestly, Picard asked a very relevant question to the modern age. What if our societal standards aren't what we thought they were, and we've just had rose-tinted glasses convincing ourselves otherwise. Of course, we never saw them actually deal with that properly, but S1 was a much more interesting series than S2 and S3 were.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#614

Post by anon7000 »

Lerc wrote: post #559
numeri wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stating loudly that something is obvious does not make it so. Until we all know what consciousness is, this debate is going to continue going in circles.

I don't think the debate is even resting on reasonable grounds. Few are categorically stating that machines are conscious in any sense comparable to a person. What we have is people saying 1. We don't know what it is but we are certain that this does not have it. and 2. We don't know what it is so we cannot possibly say with any certainty that this does not have it. 2. supports the principle that if we cannot say wit…

Why?

People have created machines that can, at their core, regurgitate human knowledge. They do not have long-term memory, self-direction, self-improvement, emotion, etc. At their very best, we have harnesses that can bootstrap short-lived artificial intelligences that can perform tasks and do knowledge work.

At best, we have artificial, short-lived, simulated consciousness. Human consciousness at its heart has a lot to do with emotion and experiences. An AI does a task today and goes away. The simulated consciousness hasn’t experienced or learned anything, even if can improve its environment (harness). Any expressed emotion is simply a ghost of the fact it was trained on the works of an emotional species, or RL to make it more approachable to humans.

I think there should be a lot more burden on folks trying to argue that (effectively), machines should be considered morally equivalent to humans.

Yes, having massive implications on society is a fucking fair and reasonable thing for a human being to be concerned about. Anything related to survival of the species is biologically reasonable to be concerned about.

The fact that we’re even considering this concept is an indication that human consciousness is special. Do other apex predators decide not to eat meat because it’s conscious? Despite some level of animal intelligence, they have no sense of morality. (See e.g. Orcas playing with their food.)

Other species simply do what it takes to stay alive, and that’s what this truly boils down to. If giving AI rights would lead to the destruction of humanity, yes, we should be be concerned.

For example, utilitarians might think of the greatest good for conscious species (simulated or not). Well, it’s trivial to have billions of AIs, and not so trivial to have billions of humans. Whose greatest good wins?

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#615

Post by thaneross »

moomin wrote: post #613
thaneross wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I'm reminded NuTrek exists I get sad about what we've lost.

Honestly, Picard asked a very relevant question to the modern age. What if our societal standards aren't what we thought they were, and we've just had rose-tinted glasses convincing ourselves otherwise. Of course, we never saw them actually deal with that properly, but S1 was a much more interesting series than S2 and S3 were.

The writers flat out rejected Roddenberry's vision of a better future and here's a take on why. We've reached a point in culture of deep pessimism about humanity, and so the characters in Picard are just as dysfunctional as we are.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#616

Post by teiferer »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #510
teiferer wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are those who believe that penguins, dolphins, eagles, and more are sentient beings that make choices understanding the consequences, develop love of their partners and mourn their losses, and feel, display, and act upon their emotions. Anybody objecting to that statement is just ignorant of nature and/or adheres to the quasi-religious human superiority complex.

> Anybody objecting to that statement is just ignorant of nature and/or adheres to the quasi-religious human superiority complex. Say we agree that a lot of things outside of humans are sentient. So what? Humans are sentient by that doesn't prevent treating them with with wars, bombs and what not. In fact trillions are spent every year on weaponry aimed squarely at the most sentient of all sentient beings. Why would…

I disagree with the notion that any nature protection efforts are meaningless until we have achieved world peace. (That's what you are essentially implying.)

Though I think that argument is not even applicable. "LLM's welfare" is a meaningless concept, unless "hammer and screwdriver welfare" also become a thing.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#617

Post by teiferer »

kranke155 wrote: post #488
teiferer wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consciousness is not restricted to a single animal species we call humans. The other animals don't have similar rights. (Arguably they should have more rights, but only few would desire for them to have just as many rights as humans have.)

animals do have rights. we do have animal cruelty laws.

Sure, but I wrote similar rights for a reason.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#618

Post by suddenlybananas »

famouswaffles wrote: post #585
suddenlybananas wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we owe moral consideration to toasters?

I don't know, do we? What I do know is that it's much less a concern since toasters have no agency or ability to do anything. Unfortunately, LLMs do not share this trait. Not only have they been incurring greater agency and competence, but we've been just as happy to put them behind as many things as we can as they get better abd better. So you tell me, is it smart to look at an entity that behaves like a concious ag…

This sounds like an argument for not giving them these abilities rather than any argument for giving them moral consideration.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#619

Post by anon7000 »

teiferer wrote: post #370
goodmythical wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cannot test for that which we cannot define. Given that we cannot rigorously define sentience, we cannot test for it. Doesn't really matter whether we're talking about people who are locked in comas, "brain-dead" individuals, dolphins, primates, dogs, or the carefully polished and arranged minerals that we call processors. There are those who believe that were they reduced to life support, they would no longer be…

> There are those who believe that penguins, dolphins, eagles, and more are sentient beings that make choices understanding the consequences, develop love of their partners and mourn their losses, and feel, display, and act upon their emotions. Anybody objecting to that statement is just ignorant of nature and/or adheres to the quasi-religious human superiority complex.

An eagle isn’t having a conversation with an eagle on the other side of the world about whether it should eat its prey because it’s sentient. It just eats it. I think that speaks to a moral superiority, in some ways.

I’m not claiming humans are morally superior in sum (there is a lot of evil as well as good.) But it’s pretty obvious that humans are the superior species evolutionarily in that we’ve essentially dominated the planet. And on some level, are beating evolution itself (by fixing genetic issues and helping the “least fit” to survive and reproduce.) And are also the only species which has doctors for other species.

All I’m trying to say: I can easily accept other species are intelligent and emotional. The fact that I can know that and accept that, to me, speaks to human “superiority.”

Does superiority matter? Not most of the time. What about when it comes down to life and death? If the choice was to keep one human alive or one theoretically more perfect AI alive? (Boil down utilitarianism into its essence.) doing the “most good” is by definition a human construct. Maybe an agent could have one. But if you don’t accept human superiority on some level, would you accept that a more perfect AI deserves to live more than you? To me, that’s the implication.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#620

Post by myrmidon »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #470
myrmidon wrote: post #143

I have a very simple benchmark for arguments on AI ethics: Substitute black people/women/animals as subject (instead of AI). Does that make you sound like a well-known moustache wearer? Then your argument is bad and needs work. This clearly falls into that category.

If you change the most important detail of an argument, it may no longer be sound! Wow!

Thats the thing though: If the core part of your ethics argument is just using dehumanizing language to justify why it's ok to maintain the status quo then your argument is bad.

Comparing specifically to pro-slavery perspectives makes that easy to see because those arguments from slave owners did basically the exact same thing (and were completely wrong/misguided in hindsight).

Post reply on HN