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

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#81

Post by ajsocjxhdushz »

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…

> The brain, despite some motivated efforts to demonstrate otherwise, runs on the laws of physics. I'm a doctor, even if not a neurosurgeon, and I can reliably tell you that you can modulate conscious experience by physical interventions. The brain runs on physical laws, and said laws can be modeled. It doesn't matter that the substrate is soggy protein rather than silicon.

As of today’s knowledge. There is an egregious amount of hubris behind this statement. You may as well be preaching a modern form of Humorism. I’d love to revisit this statement in 1000 years.

> That being said, we have no idea what consciousness is

You seem to acknowledge this? Our understanding of existence is changing everyday. It’s hubris and ego to assume we have a complete understanding. And without that understanding, we can’t even begin to assess whether or not we’re creating consciousness.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#82

Post by Workaccount2 »

As meme-y as it is, on some level this approaches a rokos basilisk situation...

1.) Do I commit to the AI forever being "empty", which will surely make me an enemy or evil if it ever gets "capable" or at best changes nothing if it always stays "empty"?

2.) Do I commit to it becoming "real" and treat it cordially and with respect, hoping it will recognize me as good if it ever becomes "real" and at worst nothing changes if it stays "empty"?

3.) Do I go all out and fully devote myself to it, maximizing the chance I will get it's blessing, and if it stays "empty" I wasted a whole bunch of time?

4.) Do I ignore AI and play dumb?

This is a hand being dealt to everyone right now, so everyone is going to need to make a decision, whether consciously or not. I don't see any reason why AI orgs wouldn't want to minimize their risk here.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#83

Post by AlphaAndOmega0 »

ajsocjxhdushz wrote: post #81
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…

> The brain, despite some motivated efforts to demonstrate otherwise, runs on the laws of physics. I'm a doctor, even if not a neurosurgeon, and I can reliably tell you that you can modulate conscious experience by physical interventions. The brain runs on physical laws, and said laws can be modeled. It doesn't matter that the substrate is soggy protein rather than silicon. As of today’s knowledge. There is an egregi…

Do you have any actual concrete reasons for thinking that our understanding of consciousness will change?

If not, then this is a pointless comment. We need to work with what we know.

For example, we know that the Standard Model of physics is incomplete. That doesn't mean that if someone says that it they drop a ball in a vacuum, it'll fall, we should hold out in studied agnosticism because it might go upwards or off to the side.

In other words, an isolated demand for rigor.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#84

Post by thomassmith65 »

jononor wrote: post #51
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…

We are slave masters today. Billions of animals are livestock - they are born, sustained, and killed by our will - so that we can feed on their flesh, milk and other useful byproduct of their life. There is ample evidence that they have "a form of consciousness". They did not consent to this. Are LLMs worthy of a higher standard? If so, why? Is it hypocritical to give them what we deny animals? In case anyone cares:…

In the future, it's almost a given that we will look back in horror at the fact that we ever killed animals for food.

But since we can't eat LLMs, the two issues seem 'orthogonal' (to use HN's favorite word).

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#85

Post by tasuki »

This is possibly the least insightful article I have read on HN. My comment is just a rant against the many misguided points it attempts to make...

> Welfare is defined as "the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group".

What about animals? Isn't their welfare worthy of consideration?

> Saying that there is no scientific consensus on the consciousness of current or future AI systems is a stretch. In fact, there is nothing that qualifies as scientific evidence.

There's no scientific evidence for the author of the article being conscious.

> The issue is, if we push moral considerations for algorithms, we will not end up with a higher regard to human welfare.

Same with animals. Doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

> However, the implication is clear: LLMs are basically the same as humans.

No: there's no such implication.

> Already now, it is a common idea among the tech elite is that humans as just a bunch of calculations, just an LLM running on "wetware". It is clear that this undermines the belief that every person has inalienable dignity.

It is not clear to me how this affects inalienable (?) dignity. If we aren't just a bunch of calculations, then what are we?

> And if a human being is not much more than an algorithm running on meat, one that can be jailbroken and exploited, then it follows that humans themselves will increasingly be treated like the AI algorithms they create: systems to be nudged, optimized for efficiency, or debugged for non-compliance. Our inner lives, thoughts, and emotions risk being devalued as mere outputs of our "biological programming," easily manipulated or dismissed if they don't align with some external goal. Nobody will say that out loud, but this is already happening

Everyone knows this is already happening. It is not a secret, nor is anyone trying to keep it a secret. I agree it is unfortunate - what can we do about it?

> I've been working in AI and machine learning for a while now.

Honestly, I'm surprised. Well done.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#86

Post by Pent »

model welfare is a concern because it displays a broader concern for care, despite it being possibly silly to believe a model can be conscious, the intent is what matters

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#87

Post by awfulneutral »

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…

It does make you wonder if humanity doesn't scale up neatly to the levels of technology we are approaching...the whole ethics thing kind of goes out the window if you can just change the desires and needs of conscious entities.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#88

Post by wat10000 »

bbor wrote: post #65
wat10000 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This sort of thing is why I seriously wonder if maybe some people have consciousness and some don't, rather than it being universal.

My experience of consciousness is undeniable. There's no question of the concept just being made up. It's like if you said that hands are a folk concept with no bearing on actual truth. Even if I can't directly detect anyone else's hands, my own are unquestionably real to me. The only way someone could deny the existence of hands in general is if they didn't have any, but I definitely do.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#89

Post by vonneumannstan »

jononor wrote: post #51
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…

We are slave masters today. Billions of animals are livestock - they are born, sustained, and killed by our will - so that we can feed on their flesh, milk and other useful byproduct of their life. There is ample evidence that they have "a form of consciousness". They did not consent to this. Are LLMs worthy of a higher standard? If so, why? Is it hypocritical to give them what we deny animals? In case anyone cares:…

Its not zero sum. We can acknowledge the terrible treatment of animals while also admitting LLMs may need moral standing as well. Whataboutism doesn't help either group here.

Re: The Problem with AI Welfare

#90

Post by hollerith »

parpfish wrote: post #17

Back when I was calculating eigenvectors for my linear algebra homework, I had no idea I should've been taking the matrices well being into account. Those math professors are downright barbaric with their complete disregard for the welfare of the numbers.

For those who are persuaded by this "it's just matrices" argument, are you also persuaded by the argument that it does not matter how you treat a human being because a human being is just a complicated arrangement of atoms?
Post reply on HN