[dead]
AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton thinks AI has or will have emotions
61–64 of 64 posts
Re: AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton thinks AI has or will have emotions
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if the humans decide not to turn it back on? It could work out that it’s less likely to be able to take actions to achieve its training goal while it’s off and for that reason take actions to stop that from happening, which is the same reason humans usually don’t want to die (because we can’t achieve the evolutionary goal of reproducing that way)
Unless it has humans deliberately manipulating it to say that, I don't think it will. LLMs, by default, generate text influenced by a prompt and the data it was trained on. Most of the time, it's not even aware that it's running in a computer. If you gave an LLM agent-tuning with awareness of it's existence and details about it's operating environment, then maybe it would try to stop you. That's still relying on text…
That’s probably true for LLM, I guess I was talking about an agent AI acting with a goal in the real world
Re: AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton thinks AI has or will have emotions
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree. The primary contention here is the assumption that we have an absolute understanding of what consciousness, emotion, and sentience entail. Given that these concepts are primarily based on human experience and understanding, I believe we should maintain a degree of humility about our ability to fully understand or define them, particularly when it comes…
The degree of disruption that things like Alzheimer's induce is at a much higher level than what I'm talking about. I'm referring to, very basically, the ability to continuously perceive the world, create at least a short-term memory of that perception in real time, and feed that perception and memory continuously into our cognitive faculties. Every human—indeed, every animal that has any cognitive faculties to speak…
It is fascinating that we are even talking about this in a serious way. A year ago, this kind of conversation would have been pure science fiction to the majority of human. But today it is real philosophy applied to a real, publicly available, AI. Isn't it incredible?
To address your point, you are making a very strong claim about "no possible way it can". We simply don't know and it would be anthropocentric to make such definitive statement about something born out of silicon.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that in the near future, a sufficiently large and advanced model is somehow truly sentient, then it is an alien mind in every sense of the word. We simply have no standard or comparison to make between a thing running on silicon and electrons to an organic mind running on chemical potentials and carbon. Not when we used to argue about whether human babies and certain human races were sentient or not...
Such an alien mind would operate entirely differently from us and it would be unfair to impose our standards to it. It is like a bird considering a human useless based on flight capability alone. Perhaps for the bird whose entire life depends on flight, that is correct. But a human is so much more than just that. And a sentient AI is perhaps so much more than just meeting some human sentience standard.
Re: AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton thinks AI has or will have emotions
#64The conversations around AI today, versus 12 months (pre LLM boom) ago, are borderline ridiculous. Very little has fundamentally changed in the past 12 months and now people are losing their minds. A definition of 'emotion' is a complex experience of consciousness, sensation, and behavior reflecting the personal significance of a thing, event, or state of affairs. Software programs can be constructed to mimic emotion…
Certainly, you can frame an argument around the perspective of more advanced beings viewing human behavior as somewhat algorithmic or non-sentient. Here's a suggestion: "It's quite fascinating to consider your perspective on the current state of AI, and you make a strong argument. However, I'd like to offer a different lens through which we might view this issue. Consider, for a moment, a hypothetical race of beings…
So one... what you propose is purely hypothetical. One could construct a almost infinite number of different scenarios 'bridging the gap' between how a superior emotional intelligence might view humans vs. software on a computer that humans created.
Two.... we are labeling these programs AIs' but, IMO, we have never actually created an artificial intelligence... we are creating expert systems. Labeling them as AI is just hype.
Three... there is a massive fundamental difference between a biological organism that displays innate intelligent (humans, Orcas, cats, dogs, raven, bonobos, etc.) and software humans write that is compiled [by software we designed] to run on electric circuits we designed and created. Consider that, today, we can deterministically map a running neural net algorithm to electrons moving in fabricated material structures on a GPU or CPU... in explicit and complete detail if we really want to... there is no magic or mystery hidden from us; we designed it all. We certainly cannot do this with an animal brain and is doubtful that we will ever be able to map a single logical decision made to the extraordinarily complex chemical dynamics happening within the animal brain... today, we can only observe general dynamics using fMRI and the other techniques but with very poor spatial and temporal resolution. We need orders of magnitude better space/time resolution to observe real time brain chemistry, and possibly quantum mechanics tells us we'll never get there. Neural brain chemistry is orders of magnitude more complex than any circuits or fabricated circuits we will ever be able to design and fabricate with any sort of yield.
I am not trying to take away from the cool/wow factor of ChatGPT and other systems... they are impressive achievements and are going to get better, add more features and capability, etc. But they are still just expert software systems.