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

LaMDA is not sentient

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 694 posts

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#491

Post by oldstrangers »

zzzeek wrote: post #440
oldstrangers wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's an illusion and I think it's just hubris that some people in this field think "consciousness" is something that can be electronically replicated or identified. Well we don't know what consciousness is. Our best guess is that consciousness is a stimulation of particles or chemicals in a certain way, under certain circumstances, that manifests itself in a certain way. To that end, it seems entirely reasonable tha…

but how would you ever know. you can only assume

Or maybe we evolve to become sufficiently advanced enough where we entirely understand consciousness and are able to manipulate and identify it accurately.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#492

Post by [deleted] »

strix_varius wrote: post #419
robbomacrae wrote: post #396

Of course it is not. But there's a bigger issue here. Having read the transcript it's clear we have reached the point where we have models that can fool the average person. Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... but I can also see why others will be convinced by it. I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slac…

> I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slack.. he is presenting an opinion that will become more prevailant as these models get more sophisticated. I think many of us are astounded (myself included) that a senior engineer on Google's "Responsible Artificial Intelligence" team would interpret LaMDA's most-probable-string-of-text-given-my-training-corpu…

[deleted]

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#493

Post by vineyardmike »

ranit wrote: post #459
robbomacrae wrote: post #396

Of course it is not. But there's a bigger issue here. Having read the transcript it's clear we have reached the point where we have models that can fool the average person. Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... but I can also see why others will be convinced by it. I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slac…

> Perhaps it is time to claim fait accompli with regard to the Turing test and now train models to re-assure us, when asked, that they are just a sophisticated chatbot. Good luck convincing bad actors to follow this rule.

I can totally imagine a Chinese chat bot that DMs citizens pretending to be an old classmate or colleagues long forgotten and chatting them up while trying to sus out who isn’t compliant and supportive enough of the state.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#494

Post by danaris »

stavros wrote: post #223

This article irritates me. It's point is "LaMDA is not sentient because come on", which is laughable as an argument. To everyone claiming LaMDA is not sentient, I'd like to see their criteria for sentience. What would it take for them to agree that a given program is sentient? From what I can see, most of it is "it would have to not be a program". I see a lot of "it's not sentient, it just synthesizes responses from…

As I've posted elsewhere in this discussion[0], I have a very clear set of necessary but insufficient requirements for an AI to be eligible to be considered for sentience:

1. Continuity of input: The AI needs to be constantly "on", constantly receiving input of some sort, and constantly able to produce output, rather than being strictly limited to producing discrete responses to discrete stimuli.

2. Continuity of learning: In addition, the AI needs to be continually update its "mental model" of the world—in effect, constantly "learning" and re-training its neural network on the input it receives.

I believe there are likely to be other requirements on top of these, but I am sufficiently learned neither in neuropsychology nor machine-learning/AI to be able to speak (or even reason) with any confidence about them.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31728907

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#495

Post by robbomacrae »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #434
robbomacrae wrote: post #396

Of course it is not. But there's a bigger issue here. Having read the transcript it's clear we have reached the point where we have models that can fool the average person. Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... but I can also see why others will be convinced by it. I think many of us, including Google, are guilty of shooting the messenger here. Let's cut Lemoine some slac…

> Sure, a minority of us know it is simply maths and vast amounts of training data... You could be describing my brain as well.

Perhaps. Maybe our brains are just an algorithm and data, maybe (for all I know) you are a bot, maybe we are all a simulation.

I think these sort of arguments (assuming you meant the first - that brains are just maths) that equate our thinking with a neural network are hard to deny but also we have thousands of years of history that have established that suffering is real and conscious, whilst debatably imaginary, is at least a consideration.

I therefore argue we must, for example, maintain a massive distinction between the morals of turning off a human brain vs turning off a neural network.

The calculations and output of the neural network could be achieved with pen and paper (albeit it might take years). I doubt a human brains workings could ever be calculated that way.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#497

Post by bee_rider »

ranit wrote: post #482
bee_rider wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll definitely see free-to-play lootbox games where you have a % chance of getting your AI chatbot another day of "life."

I'm not talking about games. Imagine this technology being used by an autocratic state.

I'm definitely open to being worried about... pretty much everything in the general AI/autocratic state proximity... but I'm not sure what specifically you are getting at here. That is, I can imagine an AI that is snooping on everyone. And I can imagine various forms/communications being leaked to authoritarian states. Plenty to worry about!

But, even if an AI convinced me it wasn't sentient, I'd still not trust it to keep things secret for me. I mean, I assume the little "self help" chatbot thing at work could be reviewed by HR if they wanted to.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#499

Post by mopierotti »

bee_rider wrote: post #467
ranit wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps it is time to claim fait accompli with regard to the Turing test and now train models to re-assure us, when asked, that they are just a sophisticated chatbot. Good luck convincing bad actors to follow this rule.

We'll definitely see free-to-play lootbox games where you have a % chance of getting your AI chatbot another day of "life."

This sounds like a disturbingly effective idea. I'm glad that lootbox legislation seems to be increasing, but I don't think it would cover the general concept of commercially extorting people's desire for companionship.

Re: LaMDA is not sentient

#500

Post by robbomacrae »

vineyardmike wrote: post #493
ranit wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps it is time to claim fait accompli with regard to the Turing test and now train models to re-assure us, when asked, that they are just a sophisticated chatbot. Good luck convincing bad actors to follow this rule.

I can totally imagine a Chinese chat bot that DMs citizens pretending to be an old classmate or colleagues long forgotten and chatting them up while trying to sus out who isn’t compliant and supportive enough of the state.

Yes there are sadly many ways to profit from a bot that can better emulate a human so I guess my call to action was unrealistic in that regard.

Can we do anything to better prepare users for this kind of attack? Better bot detection? Or are we doomed to a dystopian future where any interaction not in person is suspect and then, once the androids arrive, even those will be also.

Post reply on HN