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

The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#121

Post by 0xBA5ED »

colordrops wrote: post #116
0xBA5ED wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you can't concede that anything is real, that sort of makes you crazy doesn't it? A tree is real. But the concept of a tree and the word "tree" and all the ideas you have about the tree and what tree means, is that real? No, because it doesn't change the nature of the tree. When you cease to exist, the tree will still be there. Can you be absolutely 100% sure of that? Also no. But if you believe that other pe…

No, I don't feel crazy. Just honest. I have no idea if the tree is still there when I cease to exist. I just go with that assumption out of convenience. This degrading of subjective experience as a minor detail rather than a fundamental aspect of reality is one of the core sources of confusion in western thought IMHO.

I'd argue we must go with these assumptions out of necessity rather than convenience. I don't have any broad strokes to offer on western thought, however.

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#123

Post by GMoromisato »

renticulous wrote: post #115
GMoromisato wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when people say "emergent" they mean that it happens because of a combination of parts forming something greater. For example, if you decompose an airplane into its pieces, you will discover than none of the pieces can fly from Boston to San Francisco by itself. Wings can't fly without engines, engines can't work without fuel, etc. etc. Maybe consciousness is a process that requires many different components…

Would it be ok to say quantum fields are conscious in some sense? That a quality of consciousness cannot emerge if it isn't there already in the most fundamental aspects of the reality

I don't know. We get lost in definitions that way. What does "conscious" mean? What does it mean for consciousness to already be there? What do you mean by "fundamental aspect of reality"? [These are rhetorical questions--if you try to answer them, we will get lost in definitions.]

For every other problem that science tackles, there are observable results. How long does the apple take to fall? What time will the sun rise on June 21st? We can make theories and see if the theories match reality. But with consciousness there are no observable results. I know that I'm conscious, but there is no way for me to observe your consciousness. And there is no way for me to prove that I'm conscious (as opposed to a philosophical zombie).

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#125

Post by Rekindle8090 »

GMoromisato wrote: post #35
metalcrow wrote: post #13

I've attempted desperately to understand this paper after thoroughly reading it and have made 0 progress. Can anyone who does understand it attempt to explain? Currently my understanding is that this paper is claiming that "concepts" are a fundamental building block of experience (which relates to consciousness), and can only be built by a mapmaker which is something that directly converts continuous physical phenome…

It starts by saying that a simulation of something is not the real thing. A simulation of a hurricane is not a hurricane. That's certainly true and even obvious. Then they say that current AI is just a simulation of consciousness and therefore is not real consciousness. Moreover, it can never be real consciousness because it is just a simulation. But that's a circular argument: they are defining AI as a simulation. B…

[dead]

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#126

Post by deterministic »

If we assume that nature is fundamentally computational, and that our brains are 100% physical (no supernatural soul or whatever) then our consciousness is computational physics.

In other words, yes AI's could in principle have consciousness.

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#127

Post by mannykannot »

ctoth wrote: post #80
mannykannot wrote: post #60

There's interesting commentary on this paper from Maggie Vale here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-194580145 One of her points is that there are various pesky consequences for AI companies if AI becomes to be seen as conscious, such as what the paper calls the "welfare trap": if AI systems are widely regarded as being conscious or sentient, they will be seen as "moral patients", reinforcing existing concerns over w…

You noticed that too huh? It's weird ... It's not like they have to do this? They aren't forced to go full evil company mode by any extrinsic thing but even the way they frame it "welfare trap" trap? for whom? Anthropic is actually trying to do some research into model welfare which I am personally very happy about. I absolutely do not understand people who dismiss it ... wouldn't you like to at least check? doesn't…

Full disclosure: I didn't figure this out myself, I got it from Ms. Vale's review.

I agree that the term "welfare trap" is a loaded one. This looks to me to be a case of refusing to look through the telescope in case they might see something they do not want to.

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#128

Post by tsimionescu »

cameldrv wrote: post #118
tsimionescu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue that the paper brings up is that the same physical process can be interpreted as multiple different computational processes. I don't think this is relevant to the notion that consciousness is a form of computation. The assertion that consciousness is a form of computation basically means that the physical process that happens in the brain/body that we recognize as consciousness can be described in terms o…

The "hard problem" is talking about the thing that it's like to be you, to experience what is happening. I don't know about you, but I only experience one set of things happening at once, i.e. it doesn't feel like I am in two places at once or that there are two completely different versions of my life happening simultaneously. If the physical thing that is conscious is the CPU, what are the contents of its conscious…

You are presupposing that there is a single way an outside observer could interpret the way your brain works to produce consciousness. I don't see why we should believe this. The same way, even though we can model the processes in the CPU as multiple computations, perhaps only one of these models is correct in some way, and that is the model we call consciousness. Of course, this becomes highly speculative.

Re: The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI can simulate but not instantiate consciousness

#130

Post by colordrops »

0xBA5ED wrote: post #121
colordrops wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't feel crazy. Just honest. I have no idea if the tree is still there when I cease to exist. I just go with that assumption out of convenience. This degrading of subjective experience as a minor detail rather than a fundamental aspect of reality is one of the core sources of confusion in western thought IMHO.

I'd argue we must go with these assumptions out of necessity rather than convenience. I don't have any broad strokes to offer on western thought, however.

Necessity for what condition? To find truth? Making assumptions are the opposite of finding truth.
Post reply on HN