21–30 of 212 posts
The technology they are discovering is called "Language". It was designed to encode emotions by a sender and invoke emotions in the reader. The emotions a reader gets from LLM are still coming from the language
Super interesting, I wonder if this research will cause them to actually change their llm, like turning down the ”desperation neurons” to stop Claude from creating implementations for making a specific tests pass etc.
They likely already have. You can use all caps and yell at Claude and it'll react normally, while doing do so with chatgpt scares it, resulting in timid answers
> If the person becomes abusive over the course of a conversation, Claude avoids becoming increasingly submissive in response.
See: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/release-notes/system-pro...
>For instance, to ensure that AI models are safe and reliable, we may need to ensure they are capable of processing emotionally charged situations in healthy, prosocial ways.
Force-set to 0, "mask"/deactivate those representations associated with bad/dangerous emotions. Neural Prozac/lobotomy so to speak.
> Note that none of this tells us whether language models actually feel anything or have subjective experiences. You’ll never find that in the human brain either. There’s the machinery of neural correlates to experience, we never see the experience itself. That’s likely because the distinction is vacuous: they’re the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Chinese room is nonsense though. How did it get every conceivable reply to every conceivable question? Presumably because people thought of and answered everything conceivable. Meaning that you’re actually talking to a Chinese room plus multiple people composite system. You would not argue that the human part of that system isn’t conscious. But this distraction aside, my point is this: there is only mechanism. If…
> You would not argue that the human part of that system isn’t conscious. Sure I would. The human part is not being inferenced, the data is. LLM output in this circumstance is no more conscious than a book that you read by flipping to random pages. > You might just as well assume everyone and everything else is a philosophical zombie. I don't assume anything about everyone or everything's intelligence. I have a healt…
And sure, you can assume that nobody and nothing else is conscious (I think we’re talking about this rather than intelligence) and I won’t try to stop you, I just don’t think it’s a very useful stance. It kind of means that assuming consciousness or not means nothing, since it changes nothing, which is more or less what I’m saying.
The technology they are discovering is called "Language". It was designed to encode emotions by a sender and invoke emotions in the reader. The emotions a reader gets from LLM are still coming from the language
Emotional signals are more than just text though, there is a reason tone and body language is so important for understanding what someone says. Sarcasm and so on doesn't work well without it.
> Note that none of this tells us whether language models actually feel anything or have subjective experiences. You’ll never find that in the human brain either. There’s the machinery of neural correlates to experience, we never see the experience itself. That’s likely because the distinction is vacuous: they’re the same thing.
So should I go pursue a degree in psychology and become a datacenter on-call therapist?
> Note that none of this tells us whether language models actually feel anything or have subjective experiences. You’ll never find that in the human brain either. There’s the machinery of neural correlates to experience, we never see the experience itself. That’s likely because the distinction is vacuous: they’re the same thing.
Do you think these llm's have subjective experiences? (by "subjective experience" I mean the thing that makes stepping on an ant worse than kicking a pebble) And if so, do you still use them? Additionaly: when do you think that subjectivity started? Was there a "there" there with gpt2?
Philosophically I don’t think there is a point where consciousness arises. I think there is a point where a system starts to be structured in such a way that it can do language and reasoning, but I don’t think these are any different than any other mechanisms, like opening and closing a door. Differences of scale, not kind. Experience and what it is to be are just the same thing.
And yes, I use them. I try not to mistreat them in a human-relatable sense, in case that means anything.
The technology they are discovering is called "Language". It was designed to encode emotions by a sender and invoke emotions in the reader. The emotions a reader gets from LLM are still coming from the language
Emotion is mainly encoded in tone and body language. It is somewhat difficult to transport emotion using words. I don't think you can guess my current emotional state while I am writing this, but if you'd see my face it would be easy for you.
Hopefully, you can see that at least my chosen sentences have an emotional aspect?
An LLM could add emotional values to my previous sentences that a TTS can use for tonal variation, for example.