[ExI] Zombies

Giovanni Santostasi gsantostasi at gmail.com
Sun Apr 30 23:02:55 UTC 2023


Hi Brent,
It was a chip so it had no glutamate in it but just code. Hint, hint,
hint....

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:02 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230430/8b000a76/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list