[ExI] Zombies

[Jason Resch]

This is reminiscent of our recent debate:

https://youtu.be/vjuQRCG_sUw

Jason

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 6:37 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 5:11 PM Gordon Swobe <gordon.swobe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The mere fact that an LLM can be programmed/conditioned by its developers
>> to say it is or is not conscious should be evidence that it is not.
>>
>
> Should we take the ability of humans or animals to act or be trained as
> evidence they are not conscious?
>
>
>> Nobody wants to face the fact that the founders of OpenAI themselves
>> insist that the only proper test of consciousness in an LLM would require
>> that it be trained on material devoid of references to first person
>> experience.
>>
>
> Their qualifications are as computer scientists, not philosophers of mind.
> Neither linguists nor AI researchers are experts in the field of
> consciousness. What does David Chalmers say about them? Have you looked?
>
> The test open AI proposes, it passed, would be strong evidence of human
> level reflexive consciousness. But failure to pass such a test is not
> evidence against consciousness.
>
> Also: Have you taken a few moments to consider how impossible the test
> they propose would be to implement in practice? Can they not think of an
> easier test? What is their definition of consciousness?
>
>
> It is only because of that material in training corpus that LLMs can write
>> so convincingly in the first person that they appear as conscious
>> individuals and not merely as very capable calculators and language
>> processors.
>>
>
> How do you define consciousness?
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> -gts
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 7:30 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 5:23 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/04/2023 23:35, Gordon Swobe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 3:31 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So you believe them when they claim to not be conscious, but don't
>>>>> believe them when they don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you expect us to take your reports of what they say as evidence
>>>>> for whether they are conscious or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you see a problem with that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I explained in another message, (to you, I think), I first entered
>>>> these discussions a couple of months ago prepared to argue that people were
>>>> being deceived by the LLMs; that ChatGPT is lying when it says it has
>>>> consciousness and genuine emotions and so on.
>>>>
>>>> I had no personal experience with LLMs but a friend had literally
>>>> fallen in love with one, which I found more than a little alarming.
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out, GPT4-4 is saying everything I have always believed
>>>> would be true of such applications as LLMs. I’ve been saying it for decades.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good grief, man, are you incapable of just answering a question?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I'd better take your reply as a "No", you don't see a problem
>>>> with your double-standard approach to this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Please feel free to correct me, and change your (implied) answer to
>>>> "Yes".
>>>>
>>>> And when you say "prepared to argue...", I think you mean "determined
>>>> to argue...". But predetermined prejudicial opinions are no basis for a
>>>> rational argument, they are a good basis for a food-fight, though, which is
>>>> what we have here. One which you started, and seem determined to finish.
>>>>
>>>> You may not have noticed (I suspect not), but most of us here (myself
>>>> included) have no dogmatic insistence on whether or not these AI systems
>>>> can or can't have consciousness, or understand what they are saying. We are
>>>> willing to listen to, and be guided by, the available evidence, and change
>>>> our minds accordingly. It's an attitude that underlies something called the
>>>> scientific method. Give it a try, you might be surprised by how effective
>>>> it is. But it comes with a warning: It may take you out of your comfort
>>>> zone, which can be, well, uncomfortable. I suspect this is why it's not
>>>> more popular, despite how very effective it is.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think a little discomfort is worth it for the better
>>>> results, when trying to figure out how the world works, but that's just me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well said Ben. Your advice brought to mind this quote:
>>>
>>> "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts, but if
>>> he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties."
>>> -- Francis Bacon
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230430/44e673d3/attachment.htm>