71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's closer to saying that those who are falling behind declare that the science doesn't matter.
one hasnt fallen behind when those in "front" are on the wrong path
On the other hand future events have no bearing on what Herring was saying, only the accuracy of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The question of consciousness is based on what is going on in the inside, how the reasoning happening and not the output. But we don’t really understand how the reasoning is happening in humans. Tests show that our subconscious, completely outside out conscious understanding, makes decisions before we perceive that we consciously decide something [1]. Our consciousness is the output, but we don’t really know what is…
My point was we can can't prove that LLM's have consciousness. Yes, the reverse is also true. It is possible that we wouldn't really be able to tell if a AI gained consciousness as that might look very differently than we expect. An important standard for any scientific theory or hypothesis is to be falsifiable . Good old Russell's teapot. We can't disprove that that a small teapot too small to be seen by telescopes,…
For instance, say we had a Westworld type robot that perceived pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness, and reacted accordingly. But that we understood the underlying program, would we say it wasn’t conscious? If we understood our own underlying programing, would we not be “really conscious”?
We say we have LLMs “fake” empathy or feelings but at some point, digital minds will be faking it in a complex way that involves inner “thoughts”, motivations that they “perceive” internally as positive and negative, and various other subjective experiences. It gets very squishy trying to understand how our consciousness isn’t just a fake abstraction on top of the unconscious program, and a digital mind’s abstractions are fake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In one breath: scientific vigor required for your opposition. In the next breath: "anyone who disagrees with me is a loser." > Those that make the claims that LLM's are capable of suffering, that they show signs of consciousness need to deliver. If they can't, it is reasonable to assume they are full of shit. Replace LLM with any marginalized group. Black people, Jews, etc. I can easily just use this to excuse any he…
>Replace LLM with any marginalized group. Black people, Jews, etc. I can easily just use this to excuse any heinous crime I want - because you cannot prove that you aren't a philosophical zombie to me. This is so flatly ridiculous of an analogy that it becomes racist itself. Maybe the bread I eat is conscious and feels pain (the ancient Manichaens thought so!). Are you know going to refrain from eating bread in case…
Does bread talk? Can it pass the turing test? Can it produce code and fill out Excel sheets and make art and write novel stories and poetry?
People boiled lobsters and crabs alive because "they can't feel pain" using the GP's argument. They did - not hypothetically, did - use it to justify slavery. They still use it to cut the fins off of sharks and throw their useless bodies back on the water.
You wouldn't say something so unconsciable about a cat or a dog or a damn Duck. Yet here we are.
The author's main point is that output token constraints should not be the root cause for poor performance in reasoning tests, as in many cases the LLMs did not even come close to exceeding their token budgets before giving up. While that may be true, do we understand how LLMs behave according to token budget constraints? This might impact much simpler tasks as well. If we give them a task to list the names of all ci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Replace LLM with any marginalized group. Black people, Jews, etc. I can easily just use this to excuse any heinous crime I want - because you cannot prove that you aren't a philosophical zombie to me. This is so flatly ridiculous of an analogy that it becomes racist itself. Maybe the bread I eat is conscious and feels pain (the ancient Manichaens thought so!). Are you know going to refrain from eating bread in case…
I'm sure you feel quite clever, but this isn't an actual argument, it's blatant reductio ad absurdum. Does bread talk? Can it pass the turing test? Can it produce code and fill out Excel sheets and make art and write novel stories and poetry? People boiled lobsters and crabs alive because "they can't feel pain" using the GP's argument. They did - not hypothetically, did - use it to justify slavery. They still use it…
None of the animals you described can do any of those things and yet we attribute them suffering. A simulacra of language is not the prerequisite for being a conscious, feeling thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best argument I've heard for why LLMs aren't there yet, is that they don't have a real world model. They only interact with text and images, and not with the real world. They have no concept of the real world, and therefore also no real concept of truth. They learn by interacting with text, not with the world. I don't know if that argument is true, but it does make some sense. In fact, I think you might argue tha…
It doesn't make any sense. You aren't interacting with neutrinos either. Nothing really beyond some local excitations of electrical fields and EM waves in certain frequency range.