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.
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.
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.
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.
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.