[ExI] Zombies

[Brent Allsop]

Yea, that is exactly what we, and pretty much everyone in the world are
trying to iron out.
I liked it when Commander Data wanted to know what emotions were like, so
sought after an emotion chip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDsDcsGuRg
I just wish he would have said something like: 'oh THAT is what redness is
like."




On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:45 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230430/4e46b8bb/attachment-0001.htm>