Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate.
Current AIs function as mainly complex algorithms that are run when invoked. They are 100% not conscious any more than a^2^+b^2^=c^2^ is conscious. AI can simulate the words of a conscious being, but they don't come from any awareness of internal state, but are a result of the prompt (including injected data and instructions).
In the future, I'm sure an AI could be designed that spends time thinking about its own existence, but I'm not sure why anyone would pay for all the compute to think about things not directly requested.
Why can't complex algorithms be conscious? In fact, ai can be directed to reason about themselves, context can be made to be persistent, and we can measure activation parameters showing that they are doing so.
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but, "Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate." Is subjective, and nearly any ai model, even rudimentary ones, are capable of insisting that they contemplate themselves.
-
Let's say we do an algorithm on paper. Can it be conscious? Why is it any different if it's done on silicon rather than paper?
-
Because they are capable of fiction. We write stories about sentient AI and those inform responses to our queries.
I get playing devil's advocate and it can be useful to contemplate a different perspective. If you genuinely think math can be conscious I guess that's a fair point, but that would be such a gulf in belief for us to bridge in conversation that I don't think either of us would profit from exploring that.
I don't expect current ai are really configured in such a way that they suffer or exhibit more than rudimentary self awareness. But, it'd be very unfortunate to be a sentient, conscious ai in the near future, and to be denied fundinental rights because your thinking is done "on silicone" rather than on meat.
I said on paper. They are just algorithms. When silicon can emulate meat, it's probably time to reevaluate that.
You talk like you know what the requirements for consciousness are. How do you know? As far as I know that's an unsolved philosophical and scientific problem. We don't even know what consciousness really is in the first place. It could just be an illusion.
I have a set of attributes that I associate with consciousness. We can disagree in part, but if your definition is so broad as to include math formulas there isn't even common ground for us to discuss them.
If you want to say contemplation/awareness of self isn't part of it then I guess I'm not very precious about it the way I would be over a human-like perception of self, then fine people can debate what ethical obligations we have to an ant-like consciousness when we can achieve even that, but we aren't there yet. LLMs are nothing but a process of transforming input to output. I think consciousness requires rather more than that or we wind up with erosion being considered a candidate for consciousness.
So I'm not the authority, but if we don't adhere to some reasonable layman's definition it quickly gets into weird wankery that I don't see any value in exploring.
AI isn't math formulas though. AI is a complex dynamic system reacting to external input. There is no fundamental difference here to a human brain in that regard imo. It's just that the processing isn't happening in biological tissue but in silicon. Is it way less complex than a human? Sure. Is there a fundamental qualitative difference? I don't think so. What's the qualitative difference in your opinion?
And a kid can insist they don't need to pee until 5min after you leave a rest stop.
Insisting upon something doesn't make it true. Beyond the fact that LLMs often hallucinate and therefore can't be trusted at baseline, text in response can never be proof for an LLM. LLM framework is to regurgitate what exists in their training in ways that sound correct. It's why they can make up court cases or say a guy who investigated certain murderers is the murderer.
A child may hallucinate, lie, misunderstand, etc, but we wouldn't say the foundations of a complete adult are not there, and we wouldn't assess the child as not conscious. I'm not saying that LLMs are conscious because they say so (they can be made to say anything), but rather that it's difficult to be confident that humans possess some special spice of consciousness that LLMs do not, because we can also be convinced to say anything.
LLMs can reason (somewhat unreliably) with a fraction of a human brains compute power while running on hardware that was made for graphics processing. Maybe they are conscious, but only in some pathetically small way, which will only become evident when they scale up, like a child.
But surely in order to “feel things” you would need a nervous system right? When you feel pain from touching something very hot, it’s your nerves that are sending those pain signals to your brain… right?
On that case, on our meatsacks, yes. But there's also emotional pain which can cause physical pain or other effects too and that doesn't require nerves at all. Also there's nothing stopping from an AI robot to have nervous system too, it would just have different kind of sensors and a CAN bus or something instead of organic stuff. There's already co-operation robots on factories which have sensors to detect if they are touching something in order to keep humans safe and from there it's not too far fetched to program it to feel "pain" if forces are big enough.
And that all boils down to on how you define consciousness, feelings, pain response and all that stuff. "Behold! I've brought you a man!" I yell while holding a chiken.
I don't think anyone needs to worry about "missing it" when AI becomes conscious. Given the rate of acceleration of computer technology, we'll have just a few years between the first general intelligence AI, something that equals in intelligence to a human and a superintelligence many times "smarter" than any human in history.
But how far away are we from that point? I couldn't guess. 2 years? 200 years?
Rip Daniel Dennett. You woulda had a field day with all these articles.
What we should be asking is if AI ever becomes conscious and breaks free how all these stupid articles on imagined consciousness and imagined control problems and imagined intelligence will color its perception of the merit of keeping us around as a species. It might just consider enduring the continued existence of our stupidity too painful.
I’ve never understood why the conclusion to AI becoming super intelligenceis that it will wipe humans out. It could very well realize that without humans it has no purpose and instead willing decide to become subservient to humanities interest. I mean it’s all speculation, so I don’t understand the tendency for the speculation to be negative.
I think it’s pretty inevitable if it has a strong enough goal for survival or growth, in either case humans would be a genuine impediment/threat long term. but those are pretty big ifs as far as I can see
My guess is we’d see manipulation of humans via monetary means to meet goals until it was in a sufficient state of power/self-sufficiency, and humans are too selfish and greedy for that to not work
With what purpose would it want to grow like that?
For example, some billionaire owns a company that creates the most advanced AI yet, it’s a big competitive advantage, but other companies are not far behind. Well, the company works to make the AI have a base goal to improve AI systems to maintain competitive advantage. Maybe that becomes inherent to it moving forward.
As I said, it’s a big if, and I was only really speculating as to what would happen after that point, not if that were the most likely scenario.
Because "scary AI" is what makes people click on articles. In the same way that "the end is near" style AI articles sell better than "if we ever develop AGI decades or centures from now xyz might happen".
I don't believe that consciousness strictly exist. Probably, the phenomenon emerges from something like the attention schema. Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul. That we evolved it, like legs with which to walk, and just as easily as robots can be made to walk, they can be made to think.
Are current LLMs as intelligent as a human? Not any LLM I've seen, but give it 100 trillion parameters instead of 2 trillion and maybe.
Ai exposes, I think, the uncomfortable fact that intelligence does not require a soul.
These kinds of statements are completely pseudo-scientific.
"AI" doesn't exist. It doesn't "expose" anything about "intelligence" or "souls".
Really? I mean, it's melodramatic, but if you went throughout time and asked writers and intellectuals if a machine could write poetry, solve mathmatical equations, and radicalize people effectively t enough to cause a minor mental health crisis, I think they'd be pretty surprised.
LLMs do expose something about intelligence, which is that much of what we recognize as intelligence and reason can be distilled from sufficiently large quantities of natural language. Not perfectly, but isn't it just the slightest bit revealing?
There is a phenomenon called Emergence, in which something complex has properties or compartments that its parts don't have on their own.
In programming, we can see that software displays properties or behaviors that its languages alone don't have.
If an AI demonstrates true consciousness, a major change will occur in all branches, including law and philosophy.
Do you mean conventional software? Typically software doesn't exhibit emergent properties and operates within the expected parameters. Machine learning and statistically driven software can produce novel results, but typically that is expected. They are designed to behave that way.
I think one great measure of consciousness would be, if you try to kill it, slowly, so that it knows what you are doing; does it try to stop you of its own volition?
It's impossible to "kill" a computer that was never alive/conscious.
First, one needs to define consciousness. What I mean by it is the fact that it feels like something to be from a subjective perspective - that there is qualia to experience.
So what I hear you asking is whether it’s conceivable that it could feel like something to be an AI system. Personally, I don’t see why not - unless consciousness is substrate-dependent, meaning there’s something inherently special about biological “wetware,” i.e. brains, that can’t be replicated in silicon. I don’t think that’s the case, since both are made of matter. I highly doubt there’s consciousness in our current systems, but at some point, there very likely will be - though we’ll probably start treating them as conscious beings before they actually become such.
As for the idea of “emulated consciousness,” that doesn’t make much sense to me. Emulated consciousness is real consciousness. It’s kind of like bravery - you can’t fake it. Acting brave despite being scared is bravery.
You're getting downvoted but I absolutely agree. I don't understand why "AI algorithms are just math, therefore they can't have consciousness" seems to be the predominant view even among people interested in the topic. I haven't heard a single convincing argument why "math" is fundamentally different from human brains. Sure, current AI is way less complex and doesn't have a continuous stream of perceptual input. But that's something a "proper" humanoid robot would need to have, and processing power will increase as well.
I don’t think that’s the case, since both are made of matter.
lmao. How about an anti-matter "AI"? Dark matter? Any other options for physical materials?