Sounds like one of those extraordinary popular delusions to me.
The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
301–310 of 1001 posts
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or possessed of subjective experience in any measurable way We don't know how to measure subjective experience in other people, even, other than via self-reporting, so this is a meaningless statement. Of course we don't know whether they are, and of course we can't measure it. I also don't know for sure whether or not you are "possessed of subjective experience" as I can't measure it. > What they are not is conscio…
Anyone who believes an algorithm could be conscious needs to take mushrooms.
Unless you can show me you can exceed the Turing computable, there is no reason to consider you any more than an algorithm.
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
"vision had decades of head start, yet LLMs leapfrogged it in just a few years." From an evolutionary perspective though vision had millions of years head start over written language. Additionally, almost all animals have quite good vision mechanisms, but very few do any written communication. Behaviors that map to intelligence don't emerge concurrently. It may well be there are different forms of signals/sensors/mec…
From a terminology point of view, I absolutely agree. Human-likeness is what most people mean when they talk about AGI. Calling it what it is would clarify a lot of the discussions around it. However I am clear that I do not believe that this will ever happen, and I see no evidence to convince that that there is even a possibility that it will. I think that Wittgenstein had it right when he said: "If a lion could spe…
>I think that Wittgenstein had it right when he said: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
Why would we not? We live in the same physical world and encounter the same problems.
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think LLMs are conscious just in a very limited way. I think consciousness is tightly coupled to intelligence. If I had to guess, the current leading LLMs consciousness is most comparable to a small fish, with a conscious lifespan of a few seconds to a few minutes. Instead of perceiving water, nutrient gradients, light, heat, etc. it's perceiving tokens. It's conscious, but it's consciousness is so foreign to us it…
> I think LLMs are conscious just in a very limited way. I think consciousness is tightly coupled to intelligence. Why?
I already answered under the other comment asking me why and if your curious I suggest looking for it.
Very short answer is Karl Friston's free energy pricniple
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Consciousness is a state of self-awareness.
If you can define consciousness in a way that is independently verifiable, you should definitely do so. World-wide fame and riches await you.
Philosophers are known for being rich, that's a claim being made here?
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not? Consciousness is a state of self-awareness.
If you can define consciousness in a way that is independently verifiable, you should definitely do so. World-wide fame and riches await you.
I doubt it, because my definition implies that consciousness is not that interesting. It's just the feeling of self-awareness, which can be independent of actual self awareness.
If you have a phantom limb, you feel "conscious" of the extra limb even if it's not a real demonstration of self-awareness.
Animal Intelligence is an emergent phenomena resulting from many neurons coordinating. Conciousness is the feeling that all of those subsystems working together as a single thing, even if they aren't
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can imagine needing without thinking (like being hungry), but feelings? How and in what space would that even manifest? Like where would such a sensation like, say, sadness reside?
Do you think animals don't have feelings?
Do you think animals don't think? Because the contention was "you can't have feelings without thinking". I believe it's much easier to convince yourself that animals think than it is to convince yourself that they have feelings (say, it's much easier to see that an ant has a thinking process, than it is to tell if it has feelings).
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Ignores the cerebellum cases - We have documented cases of humans leading normal lives with little to no brain beyond a cerebellum, which contradicts simplistic "brain = deep learning" equivalences I went to look for it on Google but couldn't find much. Could you provide a link or something to learn more about ? I found numerous cases of people living without cerebellum but I fail to see how it would justify you…
https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/16/392789753/a... https://irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius... https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/64017/what-secti... https://cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edit...
[deleted]
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many aspects to this that people like yourself miss, but I think we need satisfactory answers to them (or at least rigorous explorations of them) before we can make headway in these sorts of discussion. Imagine we assume that A.I. could be conscious. What would be the identity/scope of that consciousness. To understand what I'm driving at, let's make an analogy to humans. Our consciousness is scoped to our…
This all sounds very irrelevant. Consciousness is clearly tied to specific parts of a substrate. My consciousness doesn't change when a hair falls off my head, nor when I cut my fingernails. But it does change in some way if you were to cut the tip of my finger, or if I take a hormone pill. Similarly, if we can compute consciousness on a chip, then the chip obviously contains that consciousness. You can experimentall…
You make some interesting points, but:
> Similarly, if we can compute consciousness on a chip, then the chip obviously contains that consciousness.
This is like claiming that neurons are conscious, which as far as we can tell, they are not. For all you know, it is the algorithm that could be conscious. Or some interplay between the algorithm and the substrate, OR something else.
Another way to think of it problem: Imagine a massive cluster performing computation that is thought to give rise to consciousness. Is is the cluster that is conscious? Or the individual machines, or the chips, or the algorithm, or something else?
I personally don't think any of these can be conscious, but those that do should explain how they figure these thing out.
Re: The Case That A.I. Is Thinking
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Ignores the cerebellum cases - We have documented cases of humans leading normal lives with little to no brain beyond a cerebellum, which contradicts simplistic "brain = deep learning" equivalences I went to look for it on Google but couldn't find much. Could you provide a link or something to learn more about ? I found numerous cases of people living without cerebellum but I fail to see how it would justify you…
https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/16/392789753/a... https://irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius... https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/64017/what-secti... https://cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edit...
Your first example is someone without a cerebellum which is not like the others.
The other examples are people with compressed neural tissue but that is not the same as never having the tissue.
A being with only a cerebellum could not behave like a human.