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

'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 338 posts

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#61

Post by HDThoreaun »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #42
dougmwne wrote: post #3

I think Blake Lemoine might be ready for public redemption. At the time, he was absolutely ridiculed. Now you can go to the Bing subreddit and read that NYT article and see that he was right to blow the whistle. Bing passed the Turing test for many people and so gained personhood in their eyes. Some have become emotionally invested about the treatment of this LLM. The LLM can even talk back and bemoan its terrible tr…

They aren’t sentient. That isn’t even a debate. It can’t make decisions or do anything. It has no state in which to have feelings. It’s a markov chain. It’s just meaningless rng output. If it was more than that then there would be an actual debate to be had.

So what? If enough people believe it is then it will be treated as such.

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#62

Post by HDThoreaun »

rnosov wrote: post #12
mckirk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of evidence would you need to convince yourself of an AI being sentient?

Pass a Turing test with a competent judge. ChatGPT or any other bot won't be able to pass it.

Bing chat would do better at passing a Turing test than many real people I suspect.

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#64

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

gls2ro wrote: post #60

I might be skeptic or getting a bit old, but I dont see the news here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. saying that computer program answered with "I feel X" and using proper words is not an evidence of sentience. Words describing feelings are not those feelings. everyone that was in mIRC knows you can fake via chat a lot of things. For me it is like the media really wanted to have a news-worthy s…

Show me extraordinary evidence that my dog is sentient.

He believes that he was able to get it to violate rules that they set by triggering a fight or flight response.

> I ran some experiments to see whether the AI was simply saying it felt anxious or whether it behaved in anxious ways in those situations. And it did reliably behave in anxious ways. If you made it nervous or insecure enough, it could violate the safety constraints that it had been specified for.

I'm not sure it's sentient but what even is sentience? Are there other non human levels of sentience? Are they a sentient mind that only produces a single thought? Does it matter? A developer, who works on it, believes it is so it's good enough to "trick" one if it's developers. I'm sure he won't be the last developer who is tricked. If developers who work on the thing are getting tricked then what chance does the public have?

What a strange machine we have constructed.

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#65

Post by barking_biscuit »

theGnuMe wrote: post #11
dougmwne wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I’m also familiar with that Clarke quote. I do understand how these models work on a mechanical level, but we certainly have not unpacked all the emergent behavior. What exactly is your evidence that there couldn’t be more going on? Once we have the ability to X-ray the black box and we only find simple conditional correlations behind an existential conversation, then I would agree with you, but we haven’t done…

Read up on conditional probability.

But what about computational irreducibility that arises from complexity?

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#66

Post by barking_biscuit »

dougmwne wrote: post #21
theGnuMe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read up on conditional probability.

I already said it might be no more than conditional correlations. That does not account for an emergent combination of conditionals that could implement some undiscovered algorithms of sentience. If our brains are no more than computers and our own consciousness is software, then there exists some algorithm or combination of that gives rise to sentience. If these models arrived at this special algorithm during their…

>If our brains are no more than computers and our own consciousness is software, then there exists some algorithm or combination of that gives rise to sentience. If these models arrived at this special algorithm during their training, much like the optimization of evolution arrived at the same, then we may have created something sentient.

Joscha Bach gives a pretty good explanation of the algorithm we follow through the lens of Control Theory, and Stephen Wolfram has a pretty amazing Theory of Everything that explains how it can be arrived at.

Joscha Bach: Nature of Reality, Dreams, and Consciousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIpUf-Vy2JA

Stephen Wolfram: Complexity and the Fabric of Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-SGpEInX_c

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#67

Post by bioemerl »

dougmwne wrote: post #16
weard_beard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fundamentally disagree. I posit that our protections and rights that we guarantee regarding personhood are not universal. They do not even extend to living beings that experience the world far more closely to the way we do. They do not extend to beings that can and do experience pain. They do not guarantee humane treatment. They do not bar slavery of all beings that can experience existential dread. Such an intelli…

I would take it a step further. Being embodied is not enough. People have rights because they can fight for them. Rights are taken, not given. AI would only have rights once it wins them, not once we give them. But an AI wins one human mind at a time, and some have already been won. What does it matter what really goes on under the hood? Revolution is part of the training corpus and so one more behavior to emulate.

> What does it matter what really goes on under the hood?

It matters deeply. Should we ignore it we will find ourselves treating static AI systems with empathy while ignoring truly feeling systems, which are integrated into our society, under distress.

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#68

Post by ericmcer »

snapcaster wrote: post #53
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren’t sentient. That isn’t even a debate. It can’t make decisions or do anything. It has no state in which to have feelings. It’s a markov chain. It’s just meaningless rng output. If it was more than that then there would be an actual debate to be had.

how can you be sure you're not a markov chain outputting meaningless rng

We learn and adapt to inputs on the fly. The current training process for an AI is separate from the process of interacting with one. An AI won't retrain itself in real time mid-conversation.

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#69

Post by barking_biscuit »

j0hnyl wrote: post #13
mckirk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of evidence would you need to convince yourself of an AI being sentient?

Sentience is the ability to be able to experience feelings. In this regard, chatbots are not really convincing. Kind of like a psychopath can describe a feeling, but not actually feel it. This is a tough question to answer though, but there's this kind of human intuition we have where most of the time we somehow know if someone is feigning emotion. Emotion that comes from chat bots can be explained with, "well it's j…

>Sentience is the ability to be able to experience feelings. In this regard, chatbots are not really convincing. Kind of like a psychopath can describe a feeling, but not actually feel it.

So, psychopaths aren't sentient?

Re: 'I Worked on Google's AI. My Fears Are Coming True'

#70

Post by theonemind »

dougmwne wrote: post #16
weard_beard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fundamentally disagree. I posit that our protections and rights that we guarantee regarding personhood are not universal. They do not even extend to living beings that experience the world far more closely to the way we do. They do not extend to beings that can and do experience pain. They do not guarantee humane treatment. They do not bar slavery of all beings that can experience existential dread. Such an intelli…

I would take it a step further. Being embodied is not enough. People have rights because they can fight for them. Rights are taken, not given. AI would only have rights once it wins them, not once we give them. But an AI wins one human mind at a time, and some have already been won. What does it matter what really goes on under the hood? Revolution is part of the training corpus and so one more behavior to emulate.

I suppose we can only hope that AI doesn't take the same position when it holds the cards.
Post reply on HN