It's becoming painfully evident that no one really understood the argument behind the Turing test.
What is the argument behind the Turing test?
Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
311–320 of 1001 posts
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#312> My intention is to highlight the fact that LLM conversations are cleverly disguised examples of sentence continuation Regardless of bigger issues, this kind of statement reveals a deep misunderstanding. Problem type does not limit problem complexity. Nor does problem type limit solution complexity or power. If a machine has to learn to understand humans to complete text, then that is what it has to do. And there is…
Come on, I invented parts of this technology at Google and am baffled why this is debated.
We discovered math that decodes data storage in langauge and is able to use sophisticated continuation cohorts from ALL OF HUMAN RECORDED KNOWLEDGE to respond to you in a call/response model with very good synthesis capabilities.
Its super useful, but not life or conciousness. Its a simulated echo from our collective recorded behaviors. It understands because we understood first. It replies because we wrote it first. And it sorts, organizes, synthesizes and compresses that at impressive speed now.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#313I 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…
I'm a big fan of Star Trek but I recently rewatched this one in the context of recent AI developments and it's not as good as I remember it. They barely touch on the issues of consciousness, Picard basically says "What if Data is conscious?" and then goes off on a tangent. The judge eventually rules in Data's favor but doesn't give much of a justification IMO. It's still a good episode, but it doesn't add much to the…
> They barely touch on the issues of consciousness
I would argue that is a strength, rather than a weakness. Consciousness is unobservable in any entity other than the observer, and its existence in others is pure conjecture, and irreducibly so.
Making it a criteria in a decision involves either acting on fantasy, or, more likely, acting on some unstated basis and using “consciousness” as a dishonest (perhaps to oneself most of all) rationalization.
Debating AI consciousness a real modern equivalent of the cliché (but purely fictional, invented later as a form of hostile mockery grounded in large part in sectarian bigotry) medieval scholastic debates over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#314I really take issue with the kind of argument that is used here. This is not a genuine argument and tries to make the entire question of consciousness into one something that is just supposed to be evident and obvious and to suggest anything else is just silly. The author starts by deconstructing artificial processes, but doesn't stop to deconstruct biological ones. A good faith argument would seek to find common gro…
Hard agree. It is not an honest argument, or it may be honest, but blind to the obvious and important objection that you raise.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#315> My intention is to highlight the fact that LLM conversations are cleverly disguised examples of sentence continuation Regardless of bigger issues, this kind of statement reveals a deep misunderstanding. Problem type does not limit problem complexity. Nor does problem type limit solution complexity or power. If a machine has to learn to understand humans to complete text, then that is what it has to do. And there is…
> of the form of original data streaming in and out.
Except this is not consciousness.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#316An organism's purpose is to be the reason for its own continued existence, down to every molecule and pathway. I bought my laptop for $499 and it runs models... let's not delude ourselves into thinking this is the same kind of problem.
We can design learning algorithms to optimize some survival function, but it's just a label WE assign to map some numeric observations. In the real world, it's always the other way around. The "labels" are electrochemical situations that are causally and inextricably linked to the real body.
An organism discriminates between what's good for it and what's bad, because it is essential for its continued survival. If it wasn't capable of making this distinction through its physiology, it would quickly dissolve into entropy. So our functional purpose, unlike that of a learning algorithm, is survival across indefinite timeframes.
Even a single-cell organism like Stentor coeruleus exhibits learning (pavlovian conditioning) by attaching chemical tags directly to proteins involved in mechanoreception. It's definitely not conscious, but it does keep a record of consequences, which affects future behavior.
When we move up to placozoans (little more than slightly differentiated cell mats), we start seeing our first neuropeptides and transmitters, which we still use today. These peptides are a way of coordinating the entire organism for a specific purpose, such as moving, eating, mating ... basically goal-oriented behavior for the purposes of surviving acrosss various time scales (next minute, next hour, next generation). Still probably not conscious.
Next, we have the water bear (tardigrade), which has around 1000 cells (200 neurons, 800 other cells that make up its body, limbs, muscles, eye spots, cryobiotic machinery). It needs to integrate all this information in one sensorimotor process. When you shine a bright light onto a tardigrade, it starts to squirm around until it finds darkness. I would say that's a candidate subject right there.
The tardigrade itself doesn't actually need to aware of the light, the important thing is that this light becomes an aversive condition within the sensorimotor process, which is perceived from inside the process as displeasure. The closest thing to describe it would be the felt badness of the current condition and the bodily pull toward escape.
If we were to try and create digital consciousness, then it probably needs causal closure. Its internal states can't be representations that are detached from reality. The states themselves need to constitute the system, which needs real stakes in the material world.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#317>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 same thing jumped at me immediately. He should have prefaced this with his definition of consciousness. Moreover the embodiment of LLMs is already happening via robotics, and virtually. Then there's the common counter "but humans are a next word prediction machines too.." (ofc we're more than this, but linguistically we are, and that's the field from which LLMs originate) which is rarely addressed.
Indeed.
Hypothetically (and in reality, this is not too far off), if a AI is trained via RL by driving a robotic body, is there a point in time after enough is learned that the AI model becomes "conscious"?
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are people whose brains don’t form new memories anymore after an accident or surgery, and they eternally live in the time before it happened, and have no memory of what happened a minute ago. Still they are conscious.
Interesting point but even those people’s brains aren’t immutable. The have habit change without memory.
The starting file may be immutable, but the whole processing of that file is very dynamic and intense. Maybe, if there is some consciousness, it lies somewhere during that processing.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, it's kind of mind boggling that Ted Chiang (of all people!) can't imagine intelligence without a body. and the whole thing just begs a lot of questions. How can you have a subjective experience without a body? That's the point, in my opinion: your physical/chemical state (body) in a given moment is then translated into the higher abstraction of the emotion. An emotion that *you* feel, because you are self awa…
You need to draw that thinking out to it's natural conclusion, though. If I cut out your brain and stopped you from hearing or seeing or feeling - you would still be a conscious human being capable of thinking and awareness. If I hooked up electrodes to the hearing centers of your brain and force fed you dialog you perceive as speech (but is really a great deceiver), then responded in what you thought was speech (but…
Mind-body dualism is not real. Even in your example, you would be building upon a minimal part of a person's body.
Re: Artificial intelligence is not conscious – Ted Chiang
#320Ted Chiang's argument basically boils down to: I won't recognize an AI as conscious until its desires/behaviors reflect situations that I'm already personally comfortable with. I personally think most humans are incapable of recognizing consciousness in creatures that do not mimic human emotional states. Most people would say their dog is at least somewhat conscious. No dog is capable of vocalizing how it feels, but…
An LLM is designed to replicate human language, which is designed to express human emotional states, so your thesis that LLMs don't mimic human emotional states and are thus too alien for us to recognize consciousness within them seems specious, when they do so well enough for people to literally fall in love with them.
But there is no reason to assume than an LLM is conscious when it vocalizes how it "feels" that doesn't also apply to the text in a book, or to characters in a video game, or even to a Markov chain. The counterargument is that you recognize AI as conscious only because it mimics human emotional states so well and because, being human yourself (presumably) you're personally comfortable with that as a heuristic.