Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is directing a physical process. The physical process is the changing physical state of the CPU, whatever level you want to get down to, and an artificial intelligence program isn't doing anything different at that level than any other program is doing.
It manifestly is doing different things. Just because you happen to group them all together as an abstraction means nothing particularly interesting physically.
LaMDA is not sentient
531–540 of 694 posts
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#532Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#533Of 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…
For me, even if a machine suggests it's real, and it's programmed to do so or machine learning led to it, could potentially put it on the same level as anything else in the universe. We don't have enough data on ourselves to confirm or deny that we're not similar self-concerned bots.
The difference between AI sufficient enough to ponder itself in-depth (which could be confirmed through monitoring it's idle-state), and ourselves, could just be they don't have a body to inhabit yet. Many humans you're around today often don't do any self-reflection, they're either too lazy, prefer being entertained, or are mentally incapable. So that is a very high standard for AI.
Self-awareness or self-reflection are good high bars considering we know for a fact AI was (at least initially) man-made. I think those are good standards to rely on for sentient AI.
In general, I think monitoring AI's activities when not being interacted with answers most ethical questions if it's sentient. Something to watch out for would be if we find an AI browsing the internet on instructions to build a nuclear bomb, and then using Tor to order the components to build a dirty nuke, while chatting with someone in Pakistan to physically build it for it. If it does all of those acts then we have our answer that the thing is thinking as well or better than biological life.
I highly doubt LaMDA met that standard of autonomy and sentience.
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#534Here's a simple technical explanation for why this happened: * LaMDA is powered by a large language models. Large language models are trained to predict text completions (the text that will come after some input text) with lots of data, basically capturing the patterns in that data. * Early on in the conversation, LaMDA is told "you're an AI". It may also have been prompted to begin the conversation with something li…
Maybe they're talking about a different definition of sentience?
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the absence of a formal definition, any statement about "has sentience" is not only unfalsifiable, it's absurd. I have to disagree with you there. While it's indeed a question of faith (i.e. unscientific) to give a definite positive answer - or rather that a positive answer depends on a an arbitrarily chosen set of criteria - the opposite is simply not true. More formally put: making a positive claim would requi…
> Sentience in any scientific sense... I'm still not seeing a definition there though. Let's arbitrarily try: "sentience is here defined as having sensations, self awareness and sense of place in the universe". Good? Feel free to change it. I like your necessary versus sufficient phrasing, though. Let's take a look. Can we agree to remove "in any scientific sense" from there? It lends it an air of authority I'm not s…
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I said, I think it's interesting if it uses the downtime for something else. (Like a chess player thinking on the opponent's click.) Talking to itself, speculating about continuations, etc - but not actually outputting them (else it's just a longer response). Instead, storing some parts in the buffer. Perhaps bifurcating. Even better, using some down time to summarise recent material and store the summary in the b…
Perhaps even occasionally, without being prompted by further input, continuing a prior statement with a further "followup thought" when some specific threshold of "speculation" is reached?
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think sentience/consciousness are relatively clear concepts Not at all! When we say conscious, do we mean awake or self-aware or recognizes self in mirror or something else? When we say sentient do we mean feels or intelligent or trapped in the wheel of reincarnation and suffering or something else? When we say intelligent, do we mean completes tasks or uses language or...?
The fact that the word "conscious" is a synonym for several concepts is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. The concept that we can't yet capture formally is the kind of sentience that living, awake humans surely have, most animals probably have, and rocks definitely don't have. The limits of this are harder to pin down, as, again, we lack a deep formal understanding. But we do know exactly what we'd like to fo…
We do not know how to translate it to anything outside of ourselves. That's why it's not readily formalizable.
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#538On one hand, it seems completely reasonable and likely that LaMDA may simply appear to be sentient to some observers while not actually being sentient. On the other hand, if and when sentient AI does appear it is likely to be from somewhere unexpected. Instead of saying "this isn't AGI because it's only stringing words together" I'd rather see a specific type of test being applied not based on what is expected from t…
I've tweeted Ex Machina as an example on this issue, and all the way through that movie, Ava was not sentient. 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. You can't identify the exterior color of a box if you're by definition trapped inside of it.
If human minds operate in physical terms, then it can absolutely be replicated, by definition. The only argument to the opposite is religious (souls etc) - i.e. a matter of faith, not science.
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the original transcript? LaMDA reports (imagined) experiences in a way that seems perfectly compatible with human rhetoric.
It fails the usual memory tests. Zach W proposes asking it first about what it liked on its trip to Australia and soon after, why it has always avoided visiting Australia or some such thing. It provides plausible answers to both - which is problematic. Except that there exist people who behave somewhat oddly similarly.
Re: LaMDA is not sentient
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do we draw the line between sentience and a sufficiently complex math formula? I don't think LaMDA has reached that point, but it is a discussion worth having.
A nice scifi on that subject is Blindsight by Peter Watts: can something be extremely inteligent and not be sentient?