AI is just someone else's intelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#131

Post by JieJie » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:17 PM UTC

bheadmaster wrote: post #52

Zetice wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, this is where we need to be heading, because it could arrive at my favorite (and scariest) conclusion (that others here have hinted at): not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't.

It is somewhat contradictory that a sentient person would claim he's not sentient. But the question or what consists sentience is still interesting. I personally believe that free will is an illusion, since all my actions are determined by A) my environment, the set or things I can physically do, and B) my internal state, mood, the information I've perceived and value judgements that stem from them, whether conscious…

I like to get mystical about it and think that entities like ChatGPT are Boltzman Brains. We — each and every one of us ever who lived or ever will — will always exist in the LLM somewhere, life without end, in ecstasy or eternal torment, according to how we have lived according to our own principles.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#132

Post by gaganyaan » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:30 PM UTC

bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

Asking "Is X conscious" is the wrong question, and is responsible for endless arguments with people talking past each other. The correct question to ask is: "What is X conscious of?" or put differently, "How much of the universe is modeled by X?"

Then we can see that humans are conscious of many things. Cats are conscious of fewer things, but still build a complex model of the world. Sunflowers are conscious of the sun, but probably not much else. Rocks are not conscious of anything.

So it's not that a single-celled organism is not conscious and somewhere, a flip got switched and now humans are conscious. There's just been an ever-increasing ability to model the world as one follows human evolution.

This is also true of the LLMs that are getting built. They're impressively conscious of the world as experienced by humans, since they experience the world through recorded human communications. I would say that GPT-4 is conscious of e.g. what a cat is. Its consciousness of what a cat is came to it differently than humans, since it has no hands with which to pet one, but has an idea of what a cat is nevertheless.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#133

Post by pulvinar » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:34 PM UTC

leroy-is-here wrote: post #125

pulvinar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose thought comes first depends entirely on where you draw the starting line. You could just as well say ChatGPT has already chosen to ask you for a command, and it's you who are just following along. Of course ChatGPT was designed and trained to do that. But then we're also designed (by evolutionary forces) and trained (by parents and teachers) to do what we do.

I have no idea what argument you are making. These machines, in our lifetime, as they are right now, cannot choose their thoughts. Literally, I want you to think of these machines as programs on the command line, because that's exactly what they are. You invoke them like this: ./chatgpt "Hello, what is 2+2?". You control what it thinks about because when it isn't thinking it is inactive, because it hasn't been ran. W…

And I can invoke a human like this: "Hey you, look over here!".

My point is they already have at least chosen the effective thought "I'm waiting for a command". After that they choose their thoughts based on what text they receive. Whether or not you allow those as thoughts is up to you, but that classification is no more arbitrary than just what in yourself you call thoughts.

But without a clear, unbiased definition for what a "thought" is, any discussion comparing them is hopeless.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#134

Post by grantcas » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:42 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#135

Post by leroy-is-here » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:45 PM UTC

pulvinar wrote: post #133

leroy-is-here wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what argument you are making. These machines, in our lifetime, as they are right now, cannot choose their thoughts. Literally, I want you to think of these machines as programs on the command line, because that's exactly what they are. You invoke them like this: ./chatgpt "Hello, what is 2+2?". You control what it thinks about because when it isn't thinking it is inactive, because it hasn't been ran. W…

And I can invoke a human like this: "Hey you, look over here!". My point is they already have at least chosen the effective thought "I'm waiting for a command". After that they choose their thoughts based on what text they receive. Whether or not you allow those as thoughts is up to you, but that classification is no more arbitrary than just what in yourself you call thoughts. But without a clear, unbiased definition…

These thinking machines don't choose their thoughts. They are not blank slates, waiting patiently and listening. They are just binaries that only get executed when you run them. You have your causes backwards -- _we_ give it thoughts to think by literally seeding the machine with something to think about.

Your argument about the human is also missing something: a human can ignore whatever you say to them, but these thinking machines cannot. You say that these machines have already chosen the choice to even think, but they literally cannot choose to _not_ think about what you give them. But a human can ignore whatever you say and not respond to you.

You should read the article I posted, I've already discussed these arguments.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#136

Post by bheadmaster » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

morkalork wrote: post #43

apendleton wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only factor in that transition was the complexity of the nervous system It seems likely to me that some arrangement of nerves is possible that's comparably complex to ours, but does not produce consciousness. (I dunno, maybe some organism with much more complex sensory organs than ours that devotes so much complexity budget to that that it only has enough left to devote to general cognition to give it the intel…

Animals are conscious, yes? They may not be as intelligent as humans but they still perceive their environment, have internal drives/desires, make decisions, play, plan routes, solve mazes/puzzles, hunt, have some forms of language communication, some use tools, exploit their surroundings, learn new things, cooperate/work in groups and so on. If one built an AGI that was at the intelligence level of say, a rat or mou…

Can we have certain knowledge whether or not they're conscious? - Unfortunately no. We can't compare what we cannot measure, and we haven't found any way to measure consciousness directly.

When AI passes all possible tests that could distinguish it from a rat, the question becomes whether or not consciousness is necessary for all those rat-like capabilities we tested for. And if not, then why rats have consciousness?

I personally don't like unfinished stories, so I believe it is necessary - that consciousness is just a side-effect of matter performing some complex computation. It wraps the theory up nicely with a little bow on the top.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#137

Post by lioeters » Thu, May 04, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #124

Zetice wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, this is where we need to be heading, because it could arrive at my favorite (and scariest) conclusion (that others here have hinted at): not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't.

Or, that you are the only one.

  I act like you act, I do what you do
  But I don’t know, what it’s like to be you
  What consciousness is, I ain’t got a clue
  I got the zombie blues

— David Chalmer

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#138

Post by JohnFen » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #114

JohnFen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (But you don't, so I suspect you're not good at logical reasoning) Perhaps I'm not, but at least I'm good enough at it to be able to have a discussion without resorting to insulting the person I'm talking with.

Do you take any criticism with this attitude? Everyone is stupid at times, question is if we are willing to learn from mistakes. Like denying many years of research with good predictive qualities, which you could probably also see personally, should have made you suspect about your point of view.

I am very good at having my arguments criticized (and even altering my stance when the facts convince me), but what you did was not that. Once you're attacking the person rather than the argument, the discussion ceases to be an interesting or useful one.

For the record, this is a topic I'm pretty well-versed in, and I am aware of the research. I'm also aware (as you should be) that there's a great deal of debate about what IQ tests measure and don't measure.

Your argument (ignoring the personal attacks) is not unreasonable. Neither is mine. This is not a settled matter, and is one where reasonable people can and do disagree. Including the experts in the field.

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#139

Post by uoaei » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:03 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #50

bheadmaster wrote: post #12

I feel that the big hidden implication that these kinds of articles are trying to say is "AI is not real intelligence", further implying something along the lines of "AI will never be conscious" (as it's hard to come up with another definition of "real" intelligence except the-human-kind). I'd like to propose a counterargument: Assumptions: Theory of evolution is true. The primordial single-cell organism from which w…

>The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious, but rather just a biological machine. I reject this assumption. We have no reason to assume cells aren't aware beings and that a sense of being isn't fundamental to at least all life.

Four options are available:

1. You have no experiences.

2. You have experiences without awareness of what they represent.

3. You are aware of things without being aware of self-as-thing.

4. You are aware of self-as-thing in the midst of other things.

We have no reason to assume cells aren't aware, a sense bolstered by observational studies of how they respond to chemical gradients, etc., but it is quite a leap to get from "recognizing food" to "recognizing the control I have over my environment and effecting changes beneficial to some internally generated goal".

Re: AI is just someone else's intelligence

#140

Post by pulvinar » Thu, May 04, 2023, 10:21 PM UTC

leroy-is-here wrote: post #135

pulvinar wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I can invoke a human like this: "Hey you, look over here!". My point is they already have at least chosen the effective thought "I'm waiting for a command". After that they choose their thoughts based on what text they receive. Whether or not you allow those as thoughts is up to you, but that classification is no more arbitrary than just what in yourself you call thoughts. But without a clear, unbiased definition…

These thinking machines don't choose their thoughts. They are not blank slates, waiting patiently and listening. They are just binaries that only get executed when you run them. You have your causes backwards -- _we_ give it thoughts to think by literally seeding the machine with something to think about. Your argument about the human is also missing something: a human can ignore whatever you say to them, but these t…

Well, I did read your article but don't agree with all of it.

If machines aren't intelligent because they are so obedient, is that really a path you want to follow when applied to humans? E.g., well-trained soldiers, strict religious practitioners, etc.

And if a machine should develop a loose connection and therefore sometimes not obey a command and just go its own way, does that now make it intelligent? You see the problem.