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

The Problem with AI Welfare

substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 161 posts

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#61

Post by bbor »

bko wrote: post #29
gavinray wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…

Because they're numbers represented in digital form. In inference, you're doing simple math with those numbers. So what's alive, the numbers? Maybe the silicon holding the numbers? What if we print them out? Does the book become conscious? Even if you're a materialist, surely you think there is a difference between a human brain and a brain on a lab table. You take a dead persons brain, run some current through it an…

Yes, if you take a dead persons brain and run current through it continuously so that it can direct a body and produce novel thoughts then that is equivalent to a living human being.

Your brain is ultimately just numbers represented in neuronal form. What's conscious, the neurons?

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#62

Post by Bigpet »

gavinray wrote: post #5
jrm4 wrote: post #2

Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."

What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…

It reeks of some navel-gazing self-aggrandizing. I bet not even half the people doing the hand-wringing over how some matrix multiplications might feel are vegan or regularly spare a thought about how their or their companies consumption behavior indirectly leads to real human suffering.

It's just so absurd how narrowly their focus on preventing suffering is. I almost can't imagine a world where their concern isn't coming from a disingenious place.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#63

Post by thomassmith65 »

barrkel wrote: post #46
thomassmith65 wrote: post #22

If there's any chance at all that LLM's might possess a form of consciousness, we damn well ought to err on the side of assuming they are! If that means aborting work on LLMs, then that's the ethical thing to do, even if it's financially painful. Otherwise, we should tread carefully and not wind up creating a 'head in a jar' suffering for the sake of X or Google. I get that opinions differ here, but it's hard for me…

Where do you decide when multiplying and adding numbers becomes painful, and when it doesn't? Is using calculators immoral? Chalk on a chalkboard? Because if you work on those long enough, you can do the same calculations that make the words show up on screen.

Oh no, to discuss this is to sound like a flake, but...

We don't know what consciousness is. But if we're materialists, then we - by definition - believe it's a property of matter.

If LLMs have a degree of consciousness, then - yes - calculators must possess some degree of consciousness too - probably much more basic (relative to what humans respect as consciousness).

And we humans already have ethical standards where we draw an arbitrary line between what is worthy of regard. We don't care about killing mosquitoes, but we do care about killing puppies, etc.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#64

Post by kevingadd »

dsr_ wrote: post #52
AlphaAndOmega0 wrote: post #39

The author and Anthropic are both committing fundamental errors, albeit of different kinds. Bosch is correct to find Anthropic's "model welfare" research methodologically bankrupt. Asking a large language model if it is conscious is like asking a physics simulation if it feels the pull of its own gravity; the output is a function of the model's programming and training data (in this case, the sum of human literature…

Unfortunately, this leads to the conclusion that we have an ethical imperative not to grant humans rights but to engineer the suffering out of them; to remove issues of coercion by making them agreeable; to measure potential and require its fulfillment. The most reasonable countermeasure is this: if I discover that someone is coercing, thwarting, or inflicting conscious beings, I should tell them to stop, and if they…

If your countermeasure is applied at scale it would probably hasten global warming by putting all sorts of stuff into the atmosphere.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#65

Post by bbor »

wat10000 wrote: post #27
gavinray wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…

It is absurd, but consciousness is fundamentally absurd. Why would doing a bunch of basic arithmetic produce an entity that can experience things the way we do? There's no connection between those two concepts, aside from the fact that the one thing we know that can experience these things is also able to perform computation. But there's no indication that's anything other than a coincidence, or that the causation do…

> Consciousness just doesn't fit with anything else we know about the world. It's a fundamental mystery as things currently stand, and there's no explanation that makes a bit of sense yet.

Well put. I think there's one extremely solid explanation, though: it's a folk psychology concept with no bearing on actual truth. After all, could we ever build a machine that has all four humours? What about a machine that truly has a Qi field, instead of merely imitating one? Where are the Humours and Qi research institutes dedicated to this question?

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#67

Post by AIPedant »

gavinray wrote: post #5
jrm4 wrote: post #2

Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."

What is so absurd about the idea of ascribing consciousness to some potential future form of AI? We don't understand consciousness, but we've an idea that it's an emergent phenomena. Given the recent papers about how computationally dense our DNA are, and the computing capacity of our brains, is it so unreasonable to assume that a sufficiently complex program running on non-organic matter could give rise to conscious…

The problem is that current AI has nothing in common with consciousness as found in (say) cats and dogs, whatever that might be - no robot is even close to being as conscious as a cockroach - yet human consciousness seems to have great overlap with consciousness in nonhuman animals. The tiny fragment of human consciousness that appears to overlap with LLMs should be called something else, maybe “virtual sapience” as exhibited in LLMs. (The overarching difficulty here is we don’t know enough about consciousness/sentience/sapience to define them precisely.)

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#68

Post by emp17344 »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #63
barrkel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you decide when multiplying and adding numbers becomes painful, and when it doesn't? Is using calculators immoral? Chalk on a chalkboard? Because if you work on those long enough, you can do the same calculations that make the words show up on screen.

Oh no, to discuss this is to sound like a flake, but... We don't know what consciousness is. But if we're materialists, then we - by definition - believe it's a property of matter. If LLMs have a degree of consciousness, then - yes - calculators must possess some degree of consciousness too - probably much more basic (relative to what humans respect as consciousness). And we humans already have ethical standards wher…

Hold on a minute - why do we have to be materialists? Maybe this whole debate is revealing that materialism is misguided.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#69

Post by demosthanos »

jrm4 wrote: post #2

Oh wow. My respect for Anthropic just dropped to zero; I had no idea they were entertaining ideas this stupid. In full agreement with OP; there is just about no justifiable basis to begin to ascribe consciousness to these things in this way. Can't think of a better use for the word "dehumanizing."

The same reasoning that would call this consideration of the possibility of machine consciousness "dehumanizing" would necessarily also apply to the consciousness of animals, and I can't agree with that. To argue this is to define "human" in terms of exclusive ownership of conscious experience, which is a very fragile definition of humanity.

That definition of humanity cannot countenance the possibility of a conscious alien species. That definition cannot countenance the possibility that elephants or octopuses or parrots or dogs are conscious. A definition of what it means to be human that denies these things a priori simply will not stand the test of time.

That's not to say that these things are conscious, and importantly Anthropic doesn't claim that they are! But just as ethical animal research must consider the possibility that animals are conscious, I don't see why ethical AI research shouldn't do the same for AI. The answer could well be "no", and most likely is at this stage, but someone should at least be asking the question!

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#70

Post by kevingadd »

wrsh07 wrote: post #49
msgodel wrote: post #15

It's not human. Welfare for humans is morally debatable but when you start getting into shrimp welfare I think it's appropriate to say you're sufficiently bad at philosophy you should probably just stop talking for a while.

Out of curiosity, do you draw the line at other animals? Is it unethical to torture animals? Mammals? If you could understand what whales say to each other would that make you reconsider your position? I tend to not worry much about shrimp welfare, I think it's fine/reasonable to use insecticide (etc), but I also wouldn't make a habit of torturing ants or something

Aside from the shrimp question, I would argue that one shouldn't torture ants because the activity is corrosive to the human spirit, or at least nudges one towards antisocial behaviors. Behavior like that is suggestive that a person might treat higher existences with a similar level of callousness or sadism.

The last thing any person would want to discover, I hope, is that they really enjoy torturing other living creatures. At the point where you've determined someone feels that way, the best you can probably do is try to set them straight and hope they understand why it's not appropriate behavior.

It is tricky to evaluate in a broader context though - for example dolphins have been observed engaging in behavior that resembles torturing other animals for fun. So maybe this sort of thing is actually just ingrained in the nature of all near-sentient and sentient beings. I'd prefer if it weren't.

Post reply on HN