Anyone who’s even slightly interested in the idea of a Chinese Room (or just good sci-fi), PLEEEASE go out and read Blindsight by Peter Watts. Not only is it a phenomenal deep-dive into what consciousness even is, but it’s got dozens of fantastic ideas in it that could make for compelling stories on their own. Also, scientifically-plausible space-vampires. That is all
Comment on Recent conversations between Dawkins and sentient chat-bot Claudia (Claude)
baller_w@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Worth a read for anyone who thinks AI may be sentient, or for those trying to pop the psychosis bubble of an buddy.
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
daannii@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
One of my top 5 books. It’s also free to read online. www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
eeeee! thank you for the link! i have too much good stuff to read now, in part thanks to you and @TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world (thank you both so much! i might disappear for a week into books but i promise to pop in for air). If i didn’t have a good choosing algorithm by now i’d be in analysis paralysis (for relatively trivial decisions: if you have multiple equally good options, flip a coin. use chwazi. roll a die. whatever works for that number. if, while doing the random number generator you find yourself hoping for a specific option, you know what you really want. if not, go with the random choice. you’re equally happy with all of them so what do you care if you randomly go with number eight? go with number eight.) One of the best problems to have (too many good choices).
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Now what did you think of Echopraxia?
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll be honest, I’ve read Blindsight a few times and pretty sure only read echopraxia once. Like 10 years ago.
But I re-read the synopsis to refresh my memory.
I remember liking Blindsight more. But not why.
I’m also not sure which story elements I’m remembering came from which book.
Was the whole vampire arch and twist from book 1 or 2?
Can you remind me of a few specific points ? Maybe that will jog my memory. Or maybe I just need to re-read it.
bbb@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
It’s interesting that you point to en.wikipedia.org/…/Hard_problem_of_consciousness when the term was coined by David Chalmers, who published Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?. From the abstract:
I conclude that while it is somewhat unlikely that current large language models are conscious, we should take seriously the possibility that successors to large language models may be conscious in the not-too-distant future.
So are we all just arguing about how likely it is, or are you arguing that current AI systems are definitely not conscious? If the latter, what do you think about the not-too-distant future ones?
But a neuroscientist will tell you it’s not simple at all. It’s not info in, info out.
The system is changed, biologically, by the input.
The same input given twice will result in a different output the 2nd time.
And the 3rd. And how frequently the input is given or it’s temporal relation to other stimuli will also change its output.
I thought online learning was possible with current LLMs, just not worth the cost. I mean, you can at least fine tune offline based on previous outputs and feedback, e.g. RLHF. I feel like maybe neither should count, but can’t say why exactly. Not many end users bother with fine tuning anymore because there are usually more effective alternatives like RAG.
What do you think about agentic systems, i.e. running an LLM in a loop with a scratchpad and tools? They just write their “memories” into text files, but if you consider those text files part of the system, then the input does technically change the system. Of course, you could argue that doesn’t count because it’s no different to changing the input. So to count, it would have to store neuralese or a LoRA or something?
daannii@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Agenic systems are definitely more sophisticated but still just directed programming.
Humans do not learn like machines learn.
I’ve already explained that the exact same input , put in twice into a human will not result in the same exact output.
But it would for a model where nothing has changed.
I also gave links to the binding problem and biopsychology of personality and how traits change how information is processed in humans.
Computers don’t have that.
This is why a human can produce new problem solving solutions.
Apply things unrelated to new problems.
We can think outside the box without producing more nonsense than useful outputs.
Machines produce mostly nonsense when parameters are relaxed.
Also Chomsky is saying he thinks potentially in the future. Someone could create artificial intelligence and it may , in part use LLMs.
That’s just him having an open mind about it.
I don’t share his sentiments. But I admit I’m open to changing my mind if I see some very convincing evidence that works with current knowledge and theories of neuroscience.
Because I’m not convinced that something is sentient because “it looks real”. Or “sounds like a person”.
It has to function in ways that would lead to evolution outside of human intervention and control with systems that would create sense of self and understanding.
Mathematical formulas cannot do either of those things.
Its like cgi. It can look very realistic. But it’s not actually a real person.
Even when motion capture is used. It’s still just a program mimicking human movements because someone told it to.
baller_w@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Literally reading it now. I hit that section last night. I put the book down immediately and started reading about the Chinese Room.
TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I won’t spoil shit, but you be sure to have fun with the rest of the book! It’s uh… well it stuck with me for a while. Also be sure to give his other book in the series, Echopraxia, a look as well. In my opinion it wasn’t quite as good but that’s like comparing a 9 to an 8.9, they’re both incredible
Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I always was on the hand of Dennet, how believe in the possibility of strong AI and held that a machine that passed the Turing test must be conscious.
Modern LLM’s have shown that a computer can pass the Turing test, even without understanding or consciousness. In that way it’s fortunate that Dennet didn’t get to live through it’s insurgence. I would be curious to his take, though.
I loved the vitriol he had in his denial of Searle and the Chinese room argument, though.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Guy who invented the Chinese Room though experiment: Look! If I write a flowchart that precisely imitates a Chinese person’s mind, then it looks like a Chinese person’s mind, even though it’s just a flowchart!
Reddit level reply: Of course! A flowchart is capable of precisely imitating all the functions of a person’s mind, even though it isn’t conscious. Therefore, consciousness cannot be measured behaviourally!
Scientist level reply: I don’t know if flowcharts can be conscious because I’ve never been a highly advanced flowchart. But if flowcharts can be made advanced enough to precisely imitate the behaviour of a conscious mind, I guess they might be capable of consciousness after all.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Right it’s silly to deny consciousness (a phenomenon we know almost nothing about) just because we can see the inner workings of a system.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 weeks ago
Yeah, I once used a TMS machine to magnetically stimulate a guy’s brain and force him to move his hand. I have a pretty good understanding of how the brain works on a functional level. About as good as My understanding of LLMs, maybe better. Still no idea how the brain produces qualia.
ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wait actually? Can you tell me more about the process and how it works? Genuinely curious
MrSmith@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
We know nothing about a lot of things, and we can deny them with certainty, due to probability.
Just because you close your eyes and want it to happen, won’t make it happen.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Won’t make what happen? I think I’m missing an implication