681–690 of 749 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that a bit extreme? Sure we don't have "the answer" but saying that the amount of things we know about how our brain works, from behavioral rhings how can our perception system can he tricked, biases in our cognition modes, the mechanism of memory and how it fails ... down to more low leven things about how the neuronal tissue works, neuroplasticity, the effects of brain injury on cognition (my favourite is whe…
I agree with you. The way I stated it was a little blunt. But no matter what the hard sciences show, they don’t really make claims about subjective experience. This is simply because the hard sciences by definition make no such claims. They can find things like correlations between states of matter and claimed subjective experience, but this doesn’t really get to the point. I think if it ever does, it will be such a…
correlations between the bits in the video memory and the claimed IMDB score of the movie
I think you're looking for consciousness on the wrong level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are degrees of sentience
Yep. And this also implies that once machines are above zero on the sentience scale they will continue up and will move past human-level sentience just like they moved past human-level chess playing. It's actually worrying ethically because a super-sentient being could experience extreme feelings compared to us, including extreme happiness and sadness, extreme psychological pain, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a fellow sentient being with absolutely zero credentials in any sort of statistical modeling field, I can simply disagree. And therein lies the problem. How can anybody possibly prove a concept that depends almost entirely on one’s philosophical axioms… which we can debate for eternity (or at least until we further our understanding of how to define sentience to the point where we can do so objectively enough to f…
I think the actual firing is very objective. He was under NDA but violated it. They reminded him to please not talk in public about NDA-ed stuff and he kept doing it. So now they fired him with a gentle reminder that "it's regrettable that [..] Blake still chose to persistently violate [..] data security policies". And from a purely practical point of view, I believe it doesn't even matter if Lemoine's theory of sent…
My comment is challenging the “I know how the software works and it’s undoubtably not sentient” assertion. Sure seems that way to me too, but it didn't to Lemoine and we’re only going to get better at building systems that convince people they are sentient. I am curious so to speak that as a society we’ve focused so much on rational and empirical study of the universe yet we still can’t objectively define sentience. Perhaps we’re stuck in a Kuhn rut.
I agree recent events have also highlighted this problem per-say. And I don’t know a solution. I do look forward to backing out of our hyper-rational rut slightly as a society so we can make more progress answering questions that science can’t currently answer.
LLM are definitely not sentient. As someone with a PhD in this domain, I attribute the 'magic' to large scale statistical knowledge assimilation by the models - and reproduction to prompts which closely match the inputs' sentence embedding. GPT-3 is known to fail in many circumstances which would otherwise be commonplace logic. (I remember seeing how addition of two small numbers yielded results - but larger numbers…
There is the Integrated Information Theory that attempts to resolve how to determine which systems are conscious, but it's far from being the only perspective, or immediately applicable.
From the point of view of one the IIT's main theorists, Christof Koch, we're still far away from machine sentience.
But I question whether if it's so far out to believe a machine capable of not only learning, but learning on their own behavior, self-monitoring for sensibleness and other very 'human' metrics is that far away from being self-aware. In fact the model seems to have been trained exactly for that.
LLM are definitely not sentient. As someone with a PhD in this domain, I attribute the 'magic' to large scale statistical knowledge assimilation by the models - and reproduction to prompts which closely match the inputs' sentence embedding. GPT-3 is known to fail in many circumstances which would otherwise be commonplace logic. (I remember seeing how addition of two small numbers yielded results - but larger numbers…
As a fellow sentient being with absolutely zero credentials in any sort of statistical modeling field, I can simply disagree. And therein lies the problem. How can anybody possibly prove a concept that depends almost entirely on one’s philosophical axioms… which we can debate for eternity (or at least until we further our understanding of how to define sentience to the point where we can do so objectively enough to f…
But it's far from applicable at this point, even if promising.
LaMDA was trained not only to learn how to dialog, but to self monitor and self improve. For me this seems close enough to self awareness to not completely dismiss Lemoine's argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In retrospect, taking part in this kind of conversation on HN makes me feel like an idiot and so I retract my earlier comment (by overwriting it with the current one, since I can't delete it anymore) just because I don't want to contribute. I was wrong to make an attempt to make a serious contribution. There is no seriousness in conversations on such matters, as "sentience", "intelligence", "understanding" etc etc. o…
You should read “philosophers respond to GPT3”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A) the stories around Zeus have not stayed constant over the century. No religion has. B) Valhalla was a dimension he travelled to regularly to celebrate the finest warriors in the after life. Why do we think his Olympian throne was on the same dimensional plane as us? C) Why would we trust a human recording from so long ago to actually capture the happenings of celestial beings? D) Ragnorak ended with massive floods…
Is anything super natural is non falsifiable? Let's say we have a particular haunted house and the ghost moves 3 hand sized objects in the house around at 03:00 on his death day. This should be falsifiable. Mythological beings have a degree of specificity and some degree of power. The more specific and the less capable a mythological being is of erasing those specificities the easier it is to falsify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it would not. Philosophy people wrap themselves up in so many circular self justifying presuppositions that they can make up whatever arguments they want to justify almost anything. It is much better to listen to people who study other, more falsifiable claims, in the material world.
This is an uncharitable view of philosophy without much evidence to show for it, especially when it comes to the philosophy of consciousness and philosophy of computing. Not to mention, falsifiability being taken as the criterion for knowledge was itself (mathematics and logical axioms are not 'falsifiable') a claim produced by a philosopher, and one which some commentators name as circular in itself. You're using a…
Oh it has a lot of evidence. Just talk to any philosopher ever on any "meta" topic. Whether that be meta ethics, or meta epistemology, or meta whatever.
They start with a conclusion that they want, such as dual-ism, or philosophy souls, or all sorts of things, and then they wrap themselves in obfuscating circles finding a justification than can't be tested in any way outside their own circular pre-suppositions that have no connection to the real world.
> to discount philosophy of science on the whole
When the philosophers start making testable predictions, that I can measure, as opposed to making stuff up in their own self referential assumptions, I will start taking them seriously.