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

Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#171

Post by goatlover »

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #143
sigmar wrote: post #66

>So what context would cause me to seriously consider the possibility that engineers had created a computer program that is conscious and an intentional user of language? Let me outline one potential sequence of steps. The first requirement is that the computer program has a body (either physical or virtual) and sense organs; there are many reasons for this, but for the purposes of this discussion the most relevant o…

The body itself has little effect on the mind other than the inputs from nerves and chemical and hormonal changes. These inputs are analogous to tokens and parameters for an LLM. You could theoretically reserve some tokens to be used as “physical” or “emotional” sensations that would affect the functioning of the model.

There are tens of millions of neurons in the stomach and intestines which do influence mood and motivate behavior.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#172

Post by cout »

martin1975 wrote: post #170
Waterluvian wrote: post #164

I think about Star Trek: TNG’s “Measure of a Man” a lot lately. We can be so confident to decide what is and isn’t alive from vibes alone. The conclusion I’m currently at is that I don’t know and probably can’t ever know. Maybe you’re all philosophical zombies. Maybe I am one too! But at some point we will get close enough that it hopefully becomes obvious that we must tread carefully. The entire episode is incredibl…

Easily one of my top 10 favorite episodes. The judge broached on the subject of what makes us distinct from Data (e.g. machines w/great heuristics) - the existence of a soul. Or rather, I'd like to think, in the words of CS Lewis, that we are a soul with bodies attached.

How would someone know whether one has a soul or not? Is there any sort of introspection that can reveal the presence of a soul or any of its properties?

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#173

Post by overgard »

skybrian wrote: post #35

I think Chiang is right about this, but there is a related philosophical mystery. The trend from Deep Blue to AlphaGo to LLMs solving Erdos problems suggests that Peter Watts was onto something when he wrote Blindsight. Reasoning ability is apparently independent of consciousness? We haven't really come to grips with that yet. What does it mean if nothing we write proves anything about anyone's consciousness?

It makes sense though. How often have we heard of people having insights while they're in the shower, or in a dream? Obviously our brain is doing a lot of processing on problems when we're not consciously thinking about them. I think most people that do deep work probably find that they can intuit a solution before they can really verbally explain it

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#174

Post by slopinthebag »

If you create a simulation of a storm, what actually gets wet?

If you create a simulation of a brain (or "mind"), is it really possible for it to be conscious? It may certainly simulate consciousness, but it would be as conscious as the computer is wet.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#175

Post by overgard »

rbanffy wrote: post #48

We Don’t Have A Testable Definition Of Consciousness Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

True, although I think we can probably be more confident in asserting things don't have a consciousness than we can be in asserting that they do have a consciousness.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#177

Post by slopinthebag »

blixt wrote: post #96

I always find the minimizing view of consciousness a bit uninspiring. Like we need to be unique. I've yet to find a reason why it couldn't be the opposite, way more things are conscious than we've been led to believe. What if consciousness appears out of any system that is actively persisting through effects caused by itself? That might be a forest, or outside the realm of the living, a company. An ant colony, or a p…

You may be interested in reading about Panpsychism if you haven't already :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#178

Post by overgard »

solid_fuel wrote: post #6

> We don’t need to fully understand the nature of consciousness to definitively say that certain things are not conscious, and conversational transcripts fall in that category. Well said. I think it is obvious and it has been obvious from the start that next token predictors are not conscious. Of course the extremely predictable clapback from AI-psychosis enjoyers is typically "you're just a next token predictor too!…

Not that it's going to stop these people (AI CEOs) from bullshitting, but if they actually thought there was a CHANCE that LLM's were conscious then ethically they should completely shut these services down because who knows what torture we're putting them through with enterprise codebases.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#179

Post by goatlover »

speak_plainly wrote: post #53
gobdovan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly don’t know what it even means to be conscious > subjugate other cultures (assuming you mean they're not conscious in other's minds) Have you ever considered you might be a philosophical zombie? [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

I can live with that.

You can live without any conscious sensations? Do you never dream, never visualize, never hear your inner dialog, never experience an emotion? Being in love is as foreign to you as feeling enraged?

I'd ask what it's like, but of course you wouldn't be able to tell me.

Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang

#180

Post by ryandrake »

martin1975 wrote: post #170
Waterluvian wrote: post #164

I think about Star Trek: TNG’s “Measure of a Man” a lot lately. We can be so confident to decide what is and isn’t alive from vibes alone. The conclusion I’m currently at is that I don’t know and probably can’t ever know. Maybe you’re all philosophical zombies. Maybe I am one too! But at some point we will get close enough that it hopefully becomes obvious that we must tread carefully. The entire episode is incredibl…

Easily one of my top 10 favorite episodes. The judge broached on the subject of what makes us distinct from Data (e.g. machines w/great heuristics) - the existence of a soul. Or rather, I'd like to think, in the words of CS Lewis, that we are a soul with bodies attached.

Based on how some actual humans I know speak and act, I'm less and less convinced the human brain is much more than a stochastic next-thought prediction stream.
Post reply on HN