Despite mentioning a philosopher (good pick!), this is just creative writing rehashing one side of the hard problem -- or, more specifically, restating the dogma that Turing wrote his most famous paper to debunk. It's really good creative writing, at least!
There's really not much else to say, cause it's all just begging the question by assuming that dogma. Like, here:
> The fact that AI can use statistical prediction to answer questions or carry on conversations tells us something important about how regular our real world is.
Sure, it's interesting if you assume that it's "just" statistical prediction. There's a link, but it's just more creative restatements of the dogma, e.g. "But the LLM is just guessing words"
The output method is a probability distribution of the next token. But that tells you nothing about what's going on on the inside
You could take a human and give them an interface restricted to the same shape as an LLM: an input stream of tokens, and an output of token probabilities. Even if you don't allow them to assign any probability that's too high, they could still effectively communicate. And I don't think that'd make them any less intelligent. You could even swap out the human after every token, to simulate the effect of having no internal memory beyond the past output. The result would still be more than just statistical probabilities, it would still be the result of intelligent thought
I'm not saying AI models are intelligent or conscious or whatever. Personally I'm more on the "probably not, how would you proof either way" camp
Yes, we can explain the bugs by looking at the code that we put in and the data it bugs out on. In a similar way, we can explain the behavior of LLMs by look at their code and the data the code operates upon.
You said you know everything about it. Then you should not have written bugs in the first place. How are you sure a system we wrote didn't emerge consciousness, if you can't even prove a system you wrote doesn't have classic logic bugs?
Yes, we know everything we put there. But we cannot consider all the possible inputs and all the possible state that the code should handle. Bugs come from that limitation.
> How are you sure a system we wrote didn't emerge consciousness,
Sure, as I said elsewhere, rocks could be conscious for all we know. Keep believing that if it makes you feel good.
bbor · · focus · HN ↗
There's really not much else to say, cause it's all just begging the question by assuming that dogma. Like, here:
> The fact that AI can use statistical prediction to answer questions or carry on conversations tells us something important about how regular our real world is.
Sure, it's interesting if you assume that it's "just" statistical prediction. There's a link, but it's just more creative restatements of the dogma, e.g. "But the LLM is just guessing words"
vhantz · · focus · HN ↗
wongarsu · · focus · HN ↗
You could take a human and give them an interface restricted to the same shape as an LLM: an input stream of tokens, and an output of token probabilities. Even if you don't allow them to assign any probability that's too high, they could still effectively communicate. And I don't think that'd make them any less intelligent. You could even swap out the human after every token, to simulate the effect of having no internal memory beyond the past output. The result would still be more than just statistical probabilities, it would still be the result of intelligent thought
I'm not saying AI models are intelligent or conscious or whatever. Personally I'm more on the "probably not, how would you proof either way" camp
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
It does not have to tell us anything. Because we built it..We know what is going on the inside. There is nothing more to it..
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
There is no mystery anywhere...
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
Again, no progress is possible unless you define what consciousness is in your view. I shall have to halt any conversation otherwise.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
They are not special. You can pile brains too, if that is your thing..
> I shall have to halt any conversation otherwise.
Hey, it is easy. Just don't press the reply button...
hardbass · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, we know everything we put there. But we cannot consider all the possible inputs and all the possible state that the code should handle. Bugs come from that limitation.
> How are you sure a system we wrote didn't emerge consciousness,
Sure, as I said elsewhere, rocks could be conscious for all we know. Keep believing that if it makes you feel good.