HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
78% Positive
Analyzed from 1882 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#consciousness#still#person#conscious#own#human#reading#read#world#humans
Discussion (42 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
> 100% of this text is AI
https://www.pangram.com/history/f8a0cf46-1d3d-4fea-a083-d88c...
Both are good series if you haven't read one or the other (or either) though I'd say Banks was the better writer, Asher world builds better than anyone I can think of in contemporary science fiction though, Spatterjay is a brilliantly realised genuinely alien feeling world and the Prador are superb "villains" (from a human perspective, totally rational from their own).
The Player of Games is an easy read if anyone wants to try him for the first time.
It's one of the reason that Musk referencing The Culture makes me want to smash my head on a desk (or someone's at least).
On a personal level I suspect Banks would have deeply disliked Musk (based on his political leanings during his life time and his works in aggregate).
But it is also funny to read about "robots" in a world where computers are still blinking lights and punchcards, if they exist at all. Some of Asimov's work took it to the logical, yet still absurd, conclusion - computers are still blinking lights and punchcards but hyperadvanced and very massive robotic positronic brains are built to run the entire world at once... basically the robots become so advanced that their brains are repurposed as computers. Very amusing in its own way.
Fallout is probably the biggest example of this I can think of. Complete with the robots that are absurdly more capable than the computer hardware seems to be, and the Yes Man who at least aspires to run his part of the world.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
Other old sci-fi I've been thinking of is The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. Where claude is chew-z with its alien intelligence & when you start interacting with some code or writing you start noticing that the writer has steel teeth & feel like "damnit, this is palmer eldritch blogging again"
All of the use cases and integrations for AI seem to be leading toward a future exactly like this. It was interesting to see how reliant he became on his AI (couldn't use a computer, didn't know his own password) - it is barely scifi at this point, and terrifying to see how close that future is, how useful it would be, and how dangerous.
The Internet has globalized/flattened elements of culture very quickly, and AI will only accelerate that. And knowing how vulnerable humans are to suggestion/advertisement/propaganda, it seems like a perfect recipe for disaster. From an evolutionary standpoint, monoculture provides certain short-term advantages but centralizes weaknesses. If nothing else, I think we are in for a bumpy ride, whether or not we continue to boil the ocean.
In my view there can never be an empirical test for consciousness, because functionalism is wrong. If functionalism was right then there would be one. There’s no third party test for a fundamentally first person phenomenon.
And a response to this response is to point out that our recognition of consciousness in other beings is predicated on attributing to them the same first-person experience of their consciousness that we each have of our own, meaning that human consciousness is intrinsically human and can't be attributed to an artificial system.
That reduces the question to a game of definitions though. If you only define consciousness for humans, then of course only humans will be conscious. But you have not learned anything about reality from that.
This kind of reasoning will also show its limits once you add animals to the picture.
(On the other hand, LLMs are exceptionally good at emulating exactly those cues we use to judge consciousness without necessarily being conscious - this is what caused the whole discussion in the first place.)
Maybe if you start messing with parts of my brain so I can become familiar with the third person correlates of consciousness (which in my usage refers entirely to the first person part) then I could learn something, but I could never learn why or how the first person exists. It just does.
If we perfectly reduce the brain to some scientific model, and I don’t doubt we will, we’ll be able to predict what I will say, but not understand why I’m observing it being said.
In any case, there is a wide variety of views here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#...
If you pose an incoherent question, the answer is 'that's not a valid question', rather than 'oh wow, how baffling'. The baffling is coming from forming what seem to be valid questions that aren't.
Another example of it is that famous who cuts the barber's hair (Russell's paradox):
The barber is the "one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves". The question is, does the barber shave himself?
Here's an LLM explaining it:
the philosophical/logical lesson is: sometimes a description that sounds grammatically fine does not actually describe a possible thing. The contradiction is in the premise, not in our failure to find the right barber.
---
For clarity, consciousness is like free will - if you invent a thing that doesn't exist and proceed to ask questions about it, the problem is you having invented a thing, not that you are then having difficulty answering questions about it.
I think that was the ultimate point of the Turing test. We can't know for certain - so the best we can do is just ask.
Agreed. But that also means I have no empirical evidence that YOU are conscious either.
That's why I hold with the philosophical stance of "consciousness is the thing that makes humans talk about consciousness."
Might as well ask, "what if reality doesn't exist?" The point of thought is to analyze reality. If your thinking leads you to discard the subject of the matter, well, feel free to do that but I don't see why anyone else should take it seriously.
These questions need a practical solution, not a perfect one. That's the problem. We need to stop chasing the perfect one.
I don't want to argue here that LLMs have consciousness, but this kind of argument annoys me because it feels like an intellectual slight of hand on its own.
There is no definite way (so far) to prove that anything besides oneself has qualia or a subjective experience.
So arguing that we cannot observe LLMs having subjective experience, therefore they cannot have any is cheap - you cannot observe that for animals or for the person sitting next to you either.
The part that self-reports are useless and LLMs sound human because they emit sequences from human training data is correct. But the article implies some sort of fundamental distinction between machines and conscious beings that can never be crossed. And I don't see any reason to assume that.
Each of the article's arguments that AI "consciousness" is actually a weak imitation of the "real thing," can with equal justice be applied to people, and the classic Turing Test method to distinguish machines from people has long since lost its authority.
And a future event, one in which AI sprints past humans in its willingness to absorb printed matter (once called "reading") and then put it to use, is ... wait ... umm, never mind, the point I wanted to make is undermined by the fact that this has already happened.
Hard to keep up these days.