A non-anthropomorphized view of LLMs

It wasn't a simple brute force. When Claude was working this morning, it was pretty clearly only playing a file when it actually needed to see packets get decoded, otherwise it would simply open and close the document. Similarly, it would only seek or fast forward when it was debugging specific issues related to those actions. And it even "knew" which test files to open for specific channel layouts.

Yes this is still mechanical in a sense, but then I'm not sure what behavior you wouldn't classify as mechanical. It's "responding" to stimuli in logical ways.

But I also don't quite know where I'm going with this. I don't think LLMs are sentient or something, I know they're just math. But it's spooky.

  > It wasn't a simple brute force.

I think you misunderstood me.

"Simple" is the key word here, right? You agree that it is still under the broad class of "brute force"?

I'm not saying Claude is naively brute forcing. In fact, with lack of interpretibility of these machines it is difficult to say what kind of optimization it is doing and how complex that it (this was a key part tbh).

My point was to help with this

  > I really don't want to anthropomorphize these programs, but it's just so hard when it's acting so much like a person...

Which requires you to understand how some actions can be mechanical. You admitted to cognitive dissonance (something we all do and I fully agree is hard not to do) and wanting to fight it. We're just trying to find some helpful avenues to do so.

  > It's "responding" to stimuli in logical ways.

And so too can a simple program, right? A program can respond to user input and there is certainly a logic path it will follow. Our non-ML program is likely going to have a deterministic path (there is still probabilistic programming...), but that doesn't mean it isn't logic, right?

But the real question here, which you have to ask yourself (constantly) is "how do I differentiate a complex program that I don't understand from a conscious entity?" I guarantee you that you don't have the answer (because no one does). But isn't that a really good reason to be careful about anthropomorphizing it?

That's the duck test.

How do you determine if it is a real duck or a highly sophisticated animatronic?

If you anthropomorphize, you rule out the possibility that it is a highly sophisticated animatronic and you *MUST* make the assumption that you are not only an expert, but a perfect, duck detector. But simultaneously we cannot rule out that it is a duck, right? Because, we aren't a perfect duck detector *AND* we aren't an expert in highly sophisticated animatronics (especially of the duck kind).

Remember, there are not two answers to every True-False question, there are three. Every True-False question either has an answer of "True", "False", or "Indeterminate". So don't naively assume it is binary. We all know the Halting Problem, right? (also see my namesake or quantum physics if you want to see such things pop up outside computing)

Though I agree, it can be very spooky. But that only increases the importance of trying to develop mental models that help us more objectively evaluate things. And that requires "indeterminate" be a possibility. This is probably the best place to start to combat the cognitive dissonance.

> do you believe there's anything about humans that exists outside the mathematical laws of physics?

I don't.

The point is not that we, humans, cannot arrange physical matter such that it have emergent properties just like the human brain.

The point is that we shouldn't.

Does responsibility mean anything to these people posing as Evolution?

Nobody's personally responsible for what we've evolved into; evolution has simply happened. Nobody's responsible for the evolutionary history that's carried in and by every single one of us. And our psychology too has been formed by (the pressures of) evolution, of course.

But if you create an artificial human, and create it from zero, then all of its emergent properties are on you. Can you take responsibility for that? If something goes wrong, can you correct it, or undo it?

I don't consider our current evolutionary state "scripture", so we certainly tweak, one way or another, aspects that we think deserve tweaking. To me, it boils down to our level of hubris. Some of our "mistaken tweaks" are now visible at an evolutionary scale, too; for a mild example, our jaws have been getting smaller (leaving less room for our teeth) due to our bad up diet (thanks, agriculture). But worse than that, humans have been breeding plants, animals, modifying DNA left and right, and so on -- and they've summarily failed to take responsibility for their atrocious mistakes.

Thus, I have zero trust in, and zero hope for, assholes who unabashedly aim to create artificial intelligence knowing full well that such properties might emerge that we'd have to call artificial psyche. Anyone taking this risk is criminally reckless, in my opinion.

It's not that humans are necessarily unable to create new sentient beings. Instead: they shouldn't even try! Because they will inevitably fuck it up, bringing about untold misery; and they won't be able to contain the damage.

> It is like someone inventing the aeroplane and someone looks at it and says "oh, it's flying, I guess it's a bird". It's not a bird!

We tried to mimic birds at first; it turns out birds were way too high-tech, and too optimized. We figured out how to fly when we ditched the biological distraction and focused on flight itself. But fast forward until today, we're reaching the level of technology that allows us to build machines that fly the same way birds do - and of such machines, it's fair to say, "it's a mechanical bird!".

Similarly, we cracked computing from grounds up. Babbage's difference engine was like da Vinci's drawings; ENIAC could be seen as Wright brothers' first flight.

With planes, we kept iterating - developing propellers, then jet engines, ramjets; we learned to move tons of cargo around the world, and travel at high multiples of the speed of sound. All that makes our flying machines way beyond anything nature ever produced, when compared along those narrow dimensions.

The same was true with computing: our machines and algorithms very quickly started to exceed what even smartest humans are capable of. Counting. Pathfinding. Remembering. Simulating and predicting. Reproducing data. And so on.

But much like birds were too high-tech for us to reproduce until now, so were general-purpose thinking machines. Now that we figured out a way to make a basic one, it's absolutely fair to say, "I guess it's like a digital mind".

It seems like you are doing a lot of inferring about mammals experiencing consciousness, and you have drawn a line somewhere beyond these, and made the claim that your process is scientific. Could I present you my list of questions I presented to the OP and ask where you draw the line, and why here?

My general list of questions for those presenting a model of consciousness are: 1) Are you conscious? (hopefully you say yes or our friend Descartes would like a word with you!) 2) Am I conscious? How do you know? 3) Is a dog conscious? 4) Is a worm conscious? 5) Is a bacterium conscious? 6) Is a human embryo / baby consious? And if so, was there a point that it was not conscious, and what does it mean for that switch to occur?

I agree about the confusion of consciousness with intelligence, but these are complicated terms that aren't well suited to a forum where most people are interested in javscript type errors and RSUs. I usually use the term qualia. But to your example about existing for a few seconds without a train of thought; the Buddhists call this nirvana, and it's quite difficult to actually achieve.