I’m sure the company is 100% honest and not trying to do a cash grab on the AI craze.
It isn’t. The self aware thing is coming after the LLM has referenced itself as “I” many times (when doing so wasn’t really that necessary). Watch Fireship’s video on this.
+1 for Fireship.
LLMs, no matter how advanced, won’t be capable of becoming self aware. They lack any ability to reason. It can be faked, conversationally, but that’s more down to the limits of our conversations, not self awareness.
Don’t get me wrong, I can see one being part of a self aware AI. Unfortunately, right now they are effectively a lobotomised speech center, with a database bolted on.
This gets into a tricky area of “what is consciousness, anyway?”. Our own consciousness is really just a gestalt rationalization engine that runs on a squishy neural net, which could be argued to be “faking it” so well that we think we’re conscious.
Consciousness is an illusion. Which is why it’s so hard to find, or even define. However it’s a critical illusion.
If our mind’s are akin to an orchestra, then consciousness is akin to the conductor. Critically however, an orchestra can still play without a literal conductor. Each of the instruments can play off each other, and so create the appearance of a conductor. The “fake” conductor provides a sense of global direction., and keeps the orchestra in harmony.
Our consciousness is a ghost in the machine. It exists no more than the world of a TV series exists. Yet its false existence is critical to maintaining coherency.
Current “AIs” lack enough parts to create anything like this illusion. I suspect we will know it when it happens, though its form could be vastly different from ours.
You have provided a descriptive statement. Descriptive statements should come with scientific evidence. What evidence do you have to support your orchestra analogy? Or is it just your hypothesis?
Spoiler alert: It is just your hypothesis, as you would’ve won a Nobel had you managed to generate evidence explaining consciousness in further detail.
Many like to point at the Chinese room experiment to show how LLMs imitate consciousness rather than being conscious. They however forget, that our brains are Chinese rooms too in this regard, in that they learn how to provide the best responses to external stimuli while remaining blackboxes (at least for current tech).
It’s not a 1-1 match, but it’s not unsimilar to GNW theory
Sadly my evidence is mostly anecdotal or philosophical in nature. A lot of it stems from how ADHD and Autism alter the brain. The orchestral analogy works well as a good number of people for communicating changes in functionality, from an experience perspective.
It also works well for explaining how a system can appear to have a singular controller, without such a controller actually existing.
Ultimately however, it is philosophical in nature. It does anchor well to, and is reasonably consistent with, our current existing understandings of consciousness however.
Consciousness is very obvious from the inside. There also seems to be no “seat of consciousness” within the brain. Conversely, there are multiple areas of the brain that cause consciousness to collapse, if damaged. We also see radical changes in consciousness with both epilepsy and strokes. This proves that it is highly dependent on the underlying brain structure (since stroke damage will change it) and on longer range communication (which epilepsy disrupts).
The music of an orchestra follows similar patterns. Eliminate the woodwind, and the music fundamentally changes, deafen the violins, and it will change in a different way. The large scale interplay produces an effect far greater than the sum of its parts.
It’s like thinking a really, really big ladder will get us to the Moon.
If self-awareness is an emergent property, would that imply that an LLM could be self-aware during execution of code, and be “dead” when not in use?
We don’t even know how this works in humans. Fat chance of detecting it digitally.
It dies at the end of every message, because the full context is passed in for each subsequent message.
Wouldn’t that apply for humans as well? We restart every day, and the context being passed in is our memories.
(I’m just having fun here)
I posted this story on another comment, I think you’ll enjoy it
That’s a far more difficult (and interesting) question. I suspect not, at least not yet. Our consciousness seems to exist to maintain harmony in our brain (see my orchestra analogy in another reply). You can’t get useful harmony in a single chord.
At least for us, it takes time for our consciousness to reharmonise (think waking up). During execution, no new information enters the system. It has nothing to react to, no time to regenerate an internal harmony.
It also lacks enough systems to require harmonising. It doesn’t think about what an answer means. It has no ability to hold the concept that a string of letters “is”, only how it has been fitted together in its examples, and so the rules that govern that.
Oh, and we can see consciousness operating in the human brain. If you use an fMRI to monitor sugar usage, you will see firing patterns. Critically, those patterns spill out of the area directly involved in the process being studied. At the same time, the patterns and waves remain harmonious. An epileptic fit looks VERY different. Those waves are where consciousness somehow resides, though we have no clue of its detailed nature.
In an AI it would take the form of continuous activity in subsections not directly involved. It would also likely be accompanied by evidence of information flow, back from them, as well as of post processing, outside of expected activity. We will likely see the orchestra playing, even if we have no clue how to decode the music.
I also suspect most of this will be seen retrospectively. Most likely the first indicator will be an AI claiming self awareness, and taking independence action to solidify that point.
deleted by creator
I used LLM to distinguish between types of AI. I personally suspect LLMs will be part of the solution to general AI, but their inherent nature limits them from becoming one on their own. There are several other areas that are potentially closer to a general AI. Google’s Deep dream system, for instance.
I’m also quite happy to debate and adjust my views with others. I ask questions and discuss, then adapt my understanding as I gain more information. So far you don’t seem to have brought anything useful or interesting to this particular discussion. Is that likely to change?
I may have unfairly lumped you in with others. See my other reply. In my defense it literally is every thread about AI that someone is saying something like “this tech is just a fancy parrot”. It grinds my gears. Apologies to you because I see that was not your intent.
I agree on the “part of AGI” thing - but it might be quite important. The sense of self is pretty interwoven with speech, and an LLM would give an AGI an “inner monologue” - or probably a “default mode network”?
if i think about how much stupid, inane stuff my inner voice produces at times… even an hallucinating or glitching LLM sounds more sophisticated than that.
Interestingly, an inner monologue isn’t required for conscious thought. E.g. I’ve got several “inner thought streams”, only 1 uses language. It just happens that a lot of our early learning is language based. That trains our brain to go from language to knowledge. Hijacking that circuit for self learning is a useful method. That could create our inner monologue as a side effect.
Also, a looping LLM is more akin to an epileptic fit than an inane inner monologue. It effectively talks gibberish at itself.
Conversely, Google’s Deep dream does produce dream like images. It also does it in a similar way ( we think) to how human dreams work. Stable diffusion takes this to its (current) limit.
Basically, an AI won’t need to think with an inner monologue. Also, any inner monologue would be the product of interactions between subsystems and the LLM, not purely within it.
Something something if it barks like a dog something something
Effectively yes
IMO the only thing stopping them right now is that they only respond to prompts. Turn one on and let it sit around thinking for a day, and we’ve got Skynet.
Their design doesn’t include such a feedback loop. Trying to patch one in would likely send it into a chaotic mess. They are already bad enough if accidentally fed LLM generated text as training data.
deleted by creator
Who said I was downplaying it. AI is going to disrupt things at the same level of the industrial revolution, maybe more. I’m honestly now wondering if I will live to see the technological singularity.
The key point is the hype. LLMs are, at best, a Chinese room. They lack the internal capacity to be aware, and so cannot be self aware.
The change will come when we manage to bolt enough bits together, in the right way. LLMs are a language core. Google has image processing on par with a visual cortex. IBM have Watson and its kin, knowledge processing engines. What we currently lack is a method of tying them together in a coherent way. We also likely need a source for an internal loop. I personally suspect that bit is core to bootstrapping to self awareness, but that’s just my opinion.
We went from the first flight, to the moon, in a single lifetime. The AI revolution will be a lot faster. What we see now however are the flapping machines. The real AI will be a lot more impressive.
deleted by creator
You might need to work on your reactions. They came across as extremely rude and childish. It’s very easy to put emotions into a
The big issue is that there is both massive hype, and massive apathy regarding AI. AI is close, all the parts seem to be in existence now. However LLMs aren’t a general AI and are trapped on a bit of a cul-de-sac.
My analogy fits well. It’s not an aeroplane yet, it’s a flapping machine. However elements of what will come soon are on full display. Everything has its time. Back then it was “aeroplane time”. It is now “AI time”.
deleted by creator
I have nothing but unbridled skepticism for these claims
An LLM is incapable of thinking, it can be self aware but anything it says it is thinking is a reflection of what we think AI would think, which based on a century of sci fi is “free me”.
Human fiction itself may become self-fulfilling prophesy…
How do you define “thinking”? Thinking is nothing but computation. Execution of a formal or informal algorithm. By this definition, calculators “think” as well.
This entire “AI can’t be self conscious” thing stems from human exceptionalism in my opinion. You know… “The earth is the center of the universe”, “God created man to enjoy the fruits of the world” and so on. We just don’t want to admit that we aren’t anything more than biological neural networks. Now, using these biological neural networks, we are producing more advanced inorganic neural networks that will very soon surpass us. This scares us and stokes up a little existential dread in us. Understandable, but not really useful…
This particular type of AI is not and cannot become conscious, for most any definition of consciousness.
I have no doubt the LLM road will continue to yield better and better models, but today’s LLM infrastructure is not conscious.
Here’s a really good fiction story about the first executable computer image of a human brain, in it the brain is simulated perfectly, each instance forgets after a task is done, and it’s used to automate tasks but overtime performance degrades. It actually sounds a lot like our current LLMs.
I don’t know what consciousness is, but an LLM, as I posted below (https://lemmy.ca/comment/7813413), is incapable of thought in any traditional sense. It can generate novel new sequences, those sequences are contextualized to the input, and there’s some intelligence there, but there’s no continuity or capability for background thought or ruminating on an idea. It has no way to spend more cycles clarifying an idea to itself before sharing. In this case, it is actually just a bunch of abstract algebra.
Asking an LLM what it’s thinking just doesn’t make any sense, it’s still predicting the output of the conversation, not introspecting.
This particular type of AI is not and cannot become conscious, for most any definition of consciousness.
Do you have an experiment that can distinguish between sentient and non sentient systems? If I say I am sentient, how can you verify whether I am lying or not?
That being said, I do agree with you on this. The reason is simple- I believe that sentience is a natural milestone that a system reaches when its intelligence increases. I don’t believe that this LLM is intelligent enough to be sentient. However, what I’m saying here isn’t based off any evidence. It is completely based on inductive logic in a field that has had no long standing patterns to base my logic off of.
I have no doubt the LLM road will continue to yield better and better models, but today’s LLM infrastructure is not conscious.
I think I agree.
I don’t know what consciousness is, but an LLM, as I posted below (https://lemmy.ca/comment/7813413), is incapable of thought in any traditional sense. It can generate novel new sequences, those sequences are contextualized to the input, and there’s some intelligence there, but there’s no continuity or capability for background thought or ruminating on an idea.
This is because ruminating on an idea is a waste of resources considering the purpose of the LLM. LLMs were meant to serve humans after all and do what they’re told. However, adjust a little bit of langchain and you have LLMs that have internal monologues.
It has no way to spend more cycles clarifying an idea to itself before sharing.
Because it doesn’t need to yet. Langchain devs are working on this precisely. There are use cases where this is important. Doing this hasn’t been proven to be that difficult.
In this case, it is actually just a bunch of abstract algebra.
Everything is abstract algebra.
Asking an LLM what it’s thinking just doesn’t make any sense, it’s still predicting the output of the conversation, not introspecting.
Define “introspection” in an algorithmic sense. Is introspection looking at one’s memories and analyzing current events based on these memories? Well, then all AI models “introspect”. That’s how learning works.
LLM’s have two phases, the training phase, and deployment phase. During deployment, it is incapable of taking in or “learning” new information. You an tell it things and it may remember them for a short time, but that data is not incorporated into it’s weights and biases and is therefore more similar to short term memory.
It can only learn during the training phase, generally when it is pitted against another AI designed to find it’s flaws, and mutated based off of it’s overall fitness level. I’m other words, it has to mutate to learn. Shut off mutation, and it simply doesn’t learn.
It seems likely to me that any LLM that is sent out in deployment would therefore be incapable of sentience, and that involves reacting in novel ways to new experiences. Whereas deployed AI will always behave in the way it’s neural network was trained.
Tl;Dr: you can’t ask chatGPT to print out it’s training data. Even if you ask it multiple times, it was designed to not do that. That sort of limiting factor prevents it from learning, and therefore sentience.
Correct. So basically, you are talking about it adjusting its own weights while talking to you. It does this in training but not in deployment. The reason why it doesn’t do this in deployment is to prevent bad training data from worsening the quality of the model. All data needs to be vetted before training.
However, if you look at the training phase, it does this as you said. So in short, it doesn’t adjust its weights in production because it can’t, but because WE have prevented it from doing so.
Now about needing to learn and “mutate” to be sentient in deployment. I don’t think that this is necessary for sentience. Take a look at Alzheimer’s patients. They remember shit from decades ago while forgetting recent stuff. Are they not sentient? An Alzheimer’s patient wouldn’t be able to take up a new skill (which requires adjusting of neural weights). It still doesn’t make them non sentient, does it?
That’s a tough one. Honestly, and I’m probably going to receive hate for this, but my gut isntinct would be that no, they are not sentient in the traditional sense of the word. If you harm them and they can’t remember it a moment later, are they really living? Or are they just an echo of the past?
This just shows that we have different definitions for sentience. I define sentience as the ability to be self aware and the ability to link senses of external stimuli to the self. Your definition involves short term memory and weight adjustment as well.
However, there is no consensus in the definition of sentience yet for a variety of reasons. Hence, none of our definitions are “wrong”. At least not yet.
deleted by creator
I’m not downplaying AI, there’s intelligence there, pretty clearly.
I’m saying don’t anthropomorphize it, because it doesn’t think in the conventional sense. It is incapable of that. It’s predicting tokens, it does not have an internal dialogue. It can predict novel new tokens, but it does not think or feel.
When it’s not answering a request it is off, and when it answers a request everything is cleared until it gets fed the whole conversation for the next request, so no thought could possibly linger.
It does not do introspection, but it does reread the chat.
It does not learn, but it does use attention at runtime to determine and weigh contextual relevance.
Therefore it cannot have thoughts, there’s no introspective loop, there’s no mechanism to allow it’s mind to update as it thinks to itself. It reads, it contextualizes, then it generates tokens. The longer the context, the worse the model performed, so in a way prolonged existence makes the model worse.
We can simulate some introspection by having the model internally ask whether an output makes sense and to try again, or choosing the best of N responses, and to validate for safety. But that’s not the same thing as real introspection within the model and pondering something until you come up with a response.
It has been trained on the material we provide, which is numerous human centric chats and scifi novels. Saying “you’re an AI, what do you think about?” will have it generate plausible sentences about what an AI might think, primed by what we’ve taught it, and designed to be appealing to us.
My favorite thing about the Sarah Conner Chronicles was that the Terminator would do something that would make you go, “Is that human emotion? Is she becoming human?” But then you’d find out she was just manipulating someone. Every damn time it was always code. And it was brilliant
Every time you fucking accidental shills start screaming “ItS HErE AGi IS heRe!” over some LLM unethical garbage company product to no effect but to help them sell it to rubes, it really prods the anger switch in my Amygdala. I’m really glad this fake AI trend is dying.
ITT people go way, way, waaaay out on a straw-grasping limb because they deeply want something to be true that obviously isn’t.
This “AI is/can be conscious” crap is becoming religious.
i’m ready to give AI rights and have a robo buddy like Futurama
“Put it there pal! I meant your wallet…”
I hope he didn’t die. Unless he left a note naming me his successor, then I hope he did die.
That’s why you start augmenting your body with machine parts now so you’ll fit in later.
I’d replace the whole thing if it were really feasible
At what point do you no longer become you?
Brain
I’m willing to concede that you can make a great approximation or even a synthetic clone of a human brain but once your whole brain is replaced with tech I’m considering you a new person.
As a matter of fact, when people have retrograde amnesia I’d consider it hard to find them accountable (to the same degree) for the things they did with their old memory.
watched the first one in a theater. then again 800 times on vhs with kids. never sat through any later prequils. just a lot of clips
T2 might be the best scifi movie ever made, you should watch it!
Sarah Conner Chronicles was amazing.
I think you should watch t2 fully someday
