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

The Problem with AI Welfare

substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#141

Post by bko »

ACCount36 wrote: post #106
bko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're numbers represented in digital form. In inference, you're doing simple math with those numbers. So what's alive, the numbers? Maybe the silicon holding the numbers? What if we print them out? Does the book become conscious? Even if you're a materialist, surely you think there is a difference between a human brain and a brain on a lab table. You take a dead persons brain, run some current through it an…

What's the fundamental, inescapable difference between "numbers represented in digital form" and "jelly made of wet flesh crammed into an oversized monkey skull"? Why should one be more valid than the other?

Maybe an unpopular answer but a soul. Agency.

This materialist world view is very dangerous and could lead to terrible things if you believe numbers in a computer and a human being are equivalent.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#142

Post by bko »

dist-epoch wrote: post #124
bko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they're numbers represented in digital form. In inference, you're doing simple math with those numbers. So what's alive, the numbers? Maybe the silicon holding the numbers? What if we print them out? Does the book become conscious? Even if you're a materialist, surely you think there is a difference between a human brain and a brain on a lab table. You take a dead persons brain, run some current through it an…

What do you think you are? Just a bunch of atoms following the math of physics. And what are those atoms are made of? Just a bunch of quantum numbers in quantum fields following math equations.

I think I'm a human being with a soul

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#144

Post by bicepjai »

emp17344 wrote: post #125
parpfish wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no. we understand everything that a transformer does at computational/mechanistic level. you could print out an enormous book of weights/biases and somebody could sit down with a pen and paper (and near-infinite time/patience) and arrive at the exact same solution that any of these models do. the transformer is just a math problem. but the counterargument that you're getting is "if you know the position/momentum of e…

We can’t reduce consciousness to a math problem. Maybe that’s the thing that differentiates unfeeling statistics from living beings.

I think intelligence and consciousness must be considered as different concepts .

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#145

Post by bicepjai »

bob1029 wrote: post #31

I think anthropomorphization of machines is bad. However, I strongly believe in the close cousin of sympathizing with the machines. For example, when parking a car on a very steep incline, one could just mindlessly throw the machine into park and it would do the job dutifully. However, a more thoughtful operator might think to engage the parking brake and allow it to take the strain off the drivetrain before putting…

I think anthropomorphization of machines is an evolving concept. If some asked me to do an impression of a robot, i would say “bee bop, i am a robot”; but if I ask that same question to my son in 20 years, he’s gonna remember them as human companion or helper or pair programmer or the list goes on. At that point that generation is going to look at them differently

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#146

Post by bicepjai »

vonneumannstan wrote: post #112

>Or coming from the other way, human consciousness is nothing but an algorithm running on our brains, somehow. You can just stop reading after this. Physicalism is the only realistic framework for viewing consciousness. Everything else is nonsensical.

So what happens when llm has a body that can interact with the world ?

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#147

Post by bbor »

wat10000 wrote: post #133
bbor wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that you believe you have something called consciousness, but when pressed no one can define it in a scientific (i.e. thorough+consistent) way. In comparison, I can absolutely define hands, and thus prove to myself that I (and others!) have them. Regardless, some of the GangStalking people are 100% convinced that they have brain implants in their head that the federal government is manipulating -- belief…

My point is that my experience of consciousness is more than sufficient proof. In fact, it is the only thing I can definitively with 100% certainty know is real. Other people's consciousness is a lot harder to demonstrate, but my own is incontrovertible to me. The only way someone with that experience could say that it's not real is if they're taking the piss, they're very confused, or they just don't have it.

But what are you experiencing? Something that cannot be defined? If so, do you see the issue there?

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#148

Post by tim333 »

AIPedant wrote: post #67
gavinray wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…

The problem is that current AI has nothing in common with consciousness as found in (say) cats and dogs, whatever that might be - no robot is even close to being as conscious as a cockroach - yet human consciousness seems to have great overlap with consciousness in nonhuman animals. The tiny fragment of human consciousness that appears to overlap with LLMs should be called something else, maybe “virtual sapience” as…

This is common in arguments about AI. One person says why couldn't future AI be conscious, the next replies the problem is current LLMs aren't conscious. Future AI and current LLMs are not the same thing.

Future AI no doubt will be able to be conscious for practical purposes.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#149

Post by tim333 »

I think the basic argument in the essay is wrong. Simplifying a bit it seems to go:

AI being conscious will lead to human consciousness being devalued therefore it's wrong.

But firstly future AI probably will be conscious as in aware of thought feelings etc. And secondly it is a poor basis for morality - I mean cows are conscious but I eat burgers, humans are conscious but it didn't stop assorted atrocities. Human values should not depend on that stuff.

I think considering AI welfare in the future will be comparable to considering animal welfare now. More humane than not so doing.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#150

Post by wat10000 »

bbor wrote: post #147
wat10000 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that my experience of consciousness is more than sufficient proof. In fact, it is the only thing I can definitively with 100% certainty know is real. Other people's consciousness is a lot harder to demonstrate, but my own is incontrovertible to me. The only way someone with that experience could say that it's not real is if they're taking the piss, they're very confused, or they just don't have it.

But what are you experiencing? Something that cannot be defined? If so, do you see the issue there?

I'm not sure. What is "the issue" exactly?

The difficulty in defining it certainly makes it hard to talk about. And it makes it impossible to even conceive of how one might detect this phenomenon in other people, or even come up with any sort of theoretical framework around it.

But if "the issue" is that this difficulty means I can't really be sure it's even there, no. As I said, this is literally the only thing I can be 100% sure exists. For everything else, there's room for at least a little doubt. This world, the room I'm in, the computer I'm using, even my own body could all be illusions. But my own consciousness is definitely real.

If you don't feel the same way about your own consciousness, then as I said, you're either taking the piss, you're very confused, or you just don't have it.

Post reply on HN