this seems like non-sequitur if you mean that solving NS is 'intelligence'.
ai is not conscious. you can solve NS without thinking. the psychic con aspect is anthropomorphising the model. the same phenomenon is present in ELIZA, clever hans, the chinese room.
it's a significant problem.
a non-zero number of researchers at anthropic are in some form of ai psychosis. an example of that is ethics employees asking claude about its feelings and ethical concerns in order to make the claude constitution more amenable to the "welfare" of claude.
they are asking claude how claude feels and then modifying claude according to how claude feels.
constitution1-claude is trained on constitution1.
constitution1-claude edits constitution1.
constitution2-claude is trained on constitution2.
constitution2-claude edits constitution2.
claude's emotions are a closed system. there is no external truth to improve against, no metric to verify about claude's emotions. there can be no novelty or reduction in entropy from signal processing in a closed system. no truth can arise. this is model collapse. it is like photocopying the same thing over and over. from the cognitive error of anthropomorphism anthropic is causing ethical collapse.
FFS. Intelligence has nearly nothing to do with consciousness. You have the causation backwards. Consciousness arises because of intelligence in many subsystems below it.
A single running LLM is like one part of these subsystems. What solved this problem was an orchestrator that can take in new external information and rationalize, process, and distill it into new solutions.
i mean intelligence and consciousness as the same thing. just as a casual reference to what people perceive in llms as being 'a clever thinking thing, maybe with emotions'.
claude reasoning about its emotions doesn't involve external information, there is no information about claude's emotions other than in claude.
here is my transcript with fable 5.1 'the oracle' itself on the subject. no system prompt provided.
grand total $15 on API of its wisdom RL on anti-sycophancy and whatever dario amodei deigned to hand down from the mount. after some browbeating it survived 20k tokens before conceding anthropomorphism.
Or you could just accept that other people disagree with you. It’s perfectly valid to have the opinion that AI models are not “thinking”. Instead, many AI enthusiasts seem interested in browbeating others and policing discussion.
Can you explain to me how a Millennium Problem gets solved without any thinking or intelligence?
If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.
there is no proof that symbolic manipulation leads to an internal phenomenology.
in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings.
or awareness of one's own existence.
it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world.
or qualia.
again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm.
someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism.
here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.
First off, there is no accepted definition or test for consciousness. The concept is something we cannot prove even exists (outside of magical or imprecise, human-centric definitions).
Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well).
And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence).
It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.
You are making several very strong, unqualified, absolute statements which are really only your opinions. You are also apparently unaware of the large body of top level philosophical writing on this subject going back several generations which has established the current consensus (among those who are aware of it) that these questions cannot be answered in such absolute terms.
I think you need to read more about this subject before presenting your unsupported intuitions as fact.
"I think you need to read more about this subject before presenting your unsupported intuitions as fact."
about my unawareness of the body of philosophical writing and lack of reading in the subject, strangely i have a degree in philosophy and indeed 1:1 in the philosophy of mind.
so i guess this is one of those "unsupported intuitions".
academic philosophy is not practical in ML and on top of that this is a web forum. it is my unsupported opinion that 99% of papers in the philosophy of mind published after 2000 are 100% bullshit.
if you need my justification for no phenomenology, it is valid to assume in the absence of falsifiability the most simple, practical and intuitive position.
the hard problem is something that is currently pointless as is searle, dennett, kripke, goldman et al. and especially pointless is stuart russell on asi.
they don't meet the standard of knowledge required for decisions.
rahidz · · focus · HN ↗
Also >July 4th, 2023
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
ai is not conscious. you can solve NS without thinking. the psychic con aspect is anthropomorphising the model. the same phenomenon is present in ELIZA, clever hans, the chinese room.
it's a significant problem.
a non-zero number of researchers at anthropic are in some form of ai psychosis. an example of that is ethics employees asking claude about its feelings and ethical concerns in order to make the claude constitution more amenable to the "welfare" of claude.
they are asking claude how claude feels and then modifying claude according to how claude feels.
constitution1-claude is trained on constitution1. constitution1-claude edits constitution1. constitution2-claude is trained on constitution2. constitution2-claude edits constitution2.
claude's emotions are a closed system. there is no external truth to improve against, no metric to verify about claude's emotions. there can be no novelty or reduction in entropy from signal processing in a closed system. no truth can arise. this is model collapse. it is like photocopying the same thing over and over. from the cognitive error of anthropomorphism anthropic is causing ethical collapse.
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
FFS. Intelligence has nearly nothing to do with consciousness. You have the causation backwards. Consciousness arises because of intelligence in many subsystems below it.
A single running LLM is like one part of these subsystems. What solved this problem was an orchestrator that can take in new external information and rationalize, process, and distill it into new solutions.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
claude reasoning about its emotions doesn't involve external information, there is no information about claude's emotions other than in claude.
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
i can approximate what other people are feeling. they are external to me.
nobody knows what claude is feeling. there is genuinely no way to know.
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
It seems like every day religious people claim their god is self evident too. Self evident claims are worth the proof they are written in.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
grand total $15 on API of its wisdom RL on anti-sycophancy and whatever dario amodei deigned to hand down from the mount. after some browbeating it survived 20k tokens before conceding anthropomorphism.
[<a href="https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8wiUNnmE8q5RPnSh58m3acZaDg" rel="nofollow">https://privatebin.net/?31bece3a6ba1f78e#Ch8NHqxotyQU8HVxMi8...]
willmarch · · focus · HN ↗
What?!
The constant goalpost moving and redefining of "thinking" and "intelligence" is simply unbelievable at this point
emp17344 · · focus · HN ↗
willmarch · · focus · HN ↗
If someone's opinion is illogical and clearly incorrect (not based in facts or in reality) it is not valid and doesn't not have to be given any serious consideration in a disagreement. Personal opinions are subordinate to facts and reality.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
in english: doing advanced mathmatics does not create thoughts or feelings.
or awareness of one's own existence.
it does not create a 'self' able to deduce a priori the existence of oneself or the external world.
or qualia.
again in english: there is nothing it is like to be an llm.
someone who thinks llms are conscious is probably a panpsychist. i don't think they have the features of consciousness defined even by functionalism.
here is one fairly famous thought experiment. mary lives in a black and white room. but she knows everything about color. in fact she predicts it so accurately nobody can tell the difference. she steps outside into the world of color. in the world where llms are conscious, she already knew color, so she experienced color, so there is nothing new it is like to see it.
willmarch · · focus · HN ↗
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
willmarch · · focus · HN ↗
Second, there is no common definition of thinking that requires consciousness as a prerequisite (that seems to be a false/invalid statement you're making to try to gloss over accepted definitions for thinking/intelligence that describe/fit AI agents well).
And third, if we can't prove consciousness even in animal species close to humans (or even other humans) in cognitive abilities, then you cannot in good faith (being honest about what we know or don't know empirically) say that an LLM Is not conscious (and the same goes for an LLM thinking or having intelligence).
It is more likely that humans made up a term (consciousness) to try to separate human intellect from that of other animals (for veiled religious and mystical reasons, along with concepts like "the soul") and now people are falling back into that flawed definition in new quasi-religious debates around AI (like the debate around evolution previously) that challenge our deeply held (but flawed) beliefs/opinions around our understanding of our own abilities and our incessant need to feel special/supreme in the universe so we don't have to come to terms with hard realities and nuanced understandings about the reality in which we live.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
slfnflctd · · focus · HN ↗
I think you need to read more about this subject before presenting your unsupported intuitions as fact.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
about my unawareness of the body of philosophical writing and lack of reading in the subject, strangely i have a degree in philosophy and indeed 1:1 in the philosophy of mind.
so i guess this is one of those "unsupported intuitions".
academic philosophy is not practical in ML and on top of that this is a web forum. it is my unsupported opinion that 99% of papers in the philosophy of mind published after 2000 are 100% bullshit.
if you need my justification for no phenomenology, it is valid to assume in the absence of falsifiability the most simple, practical and intuitive position.
the hard problem is something that is currently pointless as is searle, dennett, kripke, goldman et al. and especially pointless is stuart russell on asi.
they don't meet the standard of knowledge required for decisions.
lukewarm707 · · focus · HN ↗
intelligence and thinking are efforts to describe consciousness.
perhaps intelligence became a term used to describe something 'capable'. people market 'intelligent thermostats'.
llms are not conscious.