A warning about 'model welfare' • Hacker News Board

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#681

Post by akomtu » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 7:24 PM UTC

ooloncoloophid wrote: post #82

hosel wrote: post #6

>AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer. They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations. Opening paragraph, stated without evidence. Im not entirely convinced this is true. It likely is, but at some point it very well might stop being true.

I agree. I haven't read any more than the first paragraph yet (but I will, after work). The only way that 'AIs are not conscious' can be true is if we decide, with high confidence, that they are lacking some essential property that is not lacking in ourselves. There is no convincing philosophical position that supports this (convincing to me, anyway).

AI, in its current form, is 100% deterministic. You can create an exact copy of it, roll back its state and so on. There is no room for consciousness there. An actual lifeform isn't predictable.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#682

Post by famouswaffles » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #669

famouswaffles wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not wrong. You admit that LLMs will 'learn anything that helps them predict' and fail to realize the breadth of that statement. Your chess statements don't really help your case. It doesn't matter that it usually doesn't primarily care about winning. It still learnt how to play the game, and it still knows how to win. Similar outcomes for predicting emotions would mean it still developed an affective state, and…

I said an LLM will learn anything that helps it to predict, then gave examples of playing chess by prediction and predictive emotions, both of which you seem to now accept, so you are now accepting that my "following paragraphs" did in fact follow. Go figure! You want to argue that predictive emotions are just as real as animal emotions, but that doesn't stop them from being predictive (and that AI that smiles as it…

We are talking past each other now I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look like the possibility of LLMs having qualia even registers to you because it's 'predictive emotions'.

There's no better way to predict an angry response than to be angry, qualia and all. If transformers could 'learn whatever it needs to predict text', then that potentially includes the feeling of anger. You are making some kind of distinction between 'predictive emotions' and the kind that happens when get a promotion (or get passed on a promotion) and I'm telling you that if you really understood what you said, you'd realize it is possible the machine is experiencing it the same.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#683

Post by NietzscheanNull » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #274

NietzscheanNull wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal doctrine that boils down to "trust me bro" isn't even bad doctrine (it's not proper doctrine at all), but I think the comparison is still valid here, because both sentience/non-sentience and art/porn may just be fundamental category errors. Perhaps we can't define a "partitioning" rule because no valid partition exists. For consciousness/sentience, that's an incredibly tough a pill for most to swallow; it would…

"I know it when I see it" is a famous line from a SCOTUS case in the 60's

I know! I should have made that clearer in my original reply. I think it's a bad line now in general, but an even worse justification for the ultimate ruling at the time.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#684

Post by NietzscheanNull » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #315

NietzscheanNull wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal doctrine that boils down to "trust me bro" isn't even bad doctrine (it's not proper doctrine at all), but I think the comparison is still valid here, because both sentience/non-sentience and art/porn may just be fundamental category errors. Perhaps we can't define a "partitioning" rule because no valid partition exists. For consciousness/sentience, that's an incredibly tough a pill for most to swallow; it would…

> a whole slew of Enlightenment-era philosophy (and all the modern legal principles derived therefrom) suddenly fall apart I don't think that's true. Pretty much all legal constructs hold up just fine under game theory regardless of whether or not you consider the world to be deterministic and have absolutely nothing to do with consciousness or lack thereof. Also note that a deterministic world isn't an argument agai…

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding game theory (that's a much more recent invention); a huge chunk of both civil and criminal procedure law hinges on the Enlightment-era notion of a "reasonable person" [0], and that becomes murky when humans aren't the only entities capable of reason and agency.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#685

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:25 PM UTC

qarl wrote: post #254

joe_the_user wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd strongly agree there are no non-contradictory definitions of consciousness among those that commonly appear. But it's a category that, despite these contradiction, hasn't become marginal in the fashion of the aether or the theory of the flat earth. I think this because people indeed need it to bridge the biological world and the world of ethics and legality. I think that if we have a system of legality and system…

> Confused definitions of consciousness can give really confused ideas about ethical behavior regards "intelligent" computer programs. Is that what's going on? If these things were conscious, then their creators wouldn't be responsible for their actions? That's the crux of the disagreement? That's super interesting. Thank you.

Is that what's going on? If these things were conscious, then their creators wouldn't be responsible for their actions? That's the crux of the disagreement?

No and the passage of mine you quote says nothing like that.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#686

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

famouswaffles wrote: post #682

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said an LLM will learn anything that helps it to predict, then gave examples of playing chess by prediction and predictive emotions, both of which you seem to now accept, so you are now accepting that my "following paragraphs" did in fact follow. Go figure! You want to argue that predictive emotions are just as real as animal emotions, but that doesn't stop them from being predictive (and that AI that smiles as it…

We are talking past each other now I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look like the possibility of LLMs having qualia even registers to you because it's 'predictive emotions'. There's no better way to predict an angry response than to be angry, qualia and all. If transformers could 'learn whatever it needs to predict text', then that potentially includes the feeling of anger. You are making some kind of…

So now you're trying to pivot to consciousness and qualia ?

There are other people in this thread who want to talk about that stuff, so try them instead.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#687

Post by kbelder » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:33 PM UTC

mitxela wrote: post #597

kbelder wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Anybody can, including the person in charge of spending in a corporation.

Strange how you substituted "a corporation" for "the person in charge of spending in a corporation", those aren't the same.

That was deliberate, because a corporation makes no spending decisions, ever. All decisions are made by people inside the corporation with the proper responsibility.

That is a major part of the reasoning for the Supreme Court rulings on the matter of corporate political funding.

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#688

Post by famouswaffles » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #686

famouswaffles wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking past each other now I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't look like the possibility of LLMs having qualia even registers to you because it's 'predictive emotions'. There's no better way to predict an angry response than to be angry, qualia and all. If transformers could 'learn whatever it needs to predict text', then that potentially includes the feeling of anger. You are making some kind of…

So now you're trying to pivot to consciousness and qualia ? There are other people in this thread who want to talk about that stuff, so try them instead.

>No - suffering in an emotional state, and we'll know if we are choosing to design cognitive architecture with emotions. It's not going to happen accidentally.

This was the (your) comment that started this chain. You were already talking about it. If you don't want to keep talking about it then that's fine but let's not act like i'm suddenly pivoting yeah?

Re: A warning about 'model welfare'

#689

Post by suddenlybananas » Thu, Sep 17, 2026, 10:03 PM UTC

famouswaffles wrote: post #644

suddenlybananas wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One of the biggest reasons people afford moral consideration to other peoples is their ability to do something if those considerations are left unanswered. Giving the abilities is fine, people should just be smart about it. Outward behavior is all that matters. I don't know that you are conscious, I simply strongly assume that you are. So don't create a machine that compels that assumption and model it like a toaster…

Are you a psychopath? Genuinely? Since that is not why normal people give moral considerations to others.