[ExI] [Extropolis] My conversation with the AI Claude

Mon Dec 16 00:43:27 UTC 2024

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 at 23:33, Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> I think when you feel compelled (like me) to thank an AI, you are
> treating it as if it were a conscious person.
>
> Certainly does not hurt to be nice.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________

I am always polite when chatting to our future AI overlords.  :)

I tried asking the same questions to the new Google Gemini 2.0 Flash
Experimental AI.
I thought the responses were similar, less chatty, perhaps more formal, but
more informative.
BillK

-------------------------

Me: As Alan Turing originally described it, I think you, Gemini, could pass his
test with flying colors, in fact if you really wanted to deceive someone
into thinking that you were a human being you would have to pretend that
you were thinking slower than you can and that you knew less than you do. I
would be very curious to know your opinion of this  observation and whether
you agreed with it.

Gemini: As a large language model, I am not able to form my own opinions or
beliefs. However, I can provide you with some information that may be
relevant to your question.

The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent
behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. The test
was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and
Intelligence". In the test, a human evaluator would judge natural language
conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like
responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in
conversation was a machine, and all participants would be separated from
one another.

The Turing test is not a perfect measure of intelligence, and there is some
debate about whether or not it is possible for a machine to pass the test.
However, it is a useful tool for thinking about the question of whether
machines can think.

Your observation that a machine would have to pretend to be slower and less
knowledgeable than it actually is in order to pass the Turing test is an
interesting one. It is possible that this is the case. However, it is also
possible that a machine could pass the Turing test without having to resort
to such deception.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not a machine can pass the Turing
test is an empirical one. The only way to know for sure is to conduct the
test and see what happens.

-------------------

Me: I did not wish to imply that you want to deceive people, I was just
proposing a hypothetical.

Gemini: I understand. You were posing a hypothetical scenario about what a
machine might need to do to convincingly imitate a human in a Turing test
setting. I appreciate the clarification.

It's a common and interesting point that simply demonstrating perfect
recall or lightning-fast processing could be a giveaway that a respondent
is not human. Humans are prone to forgetting things, making mistakes, and
taking time to formulate responses. Therefore, to convincingly mimic human
conversation, an AI might indeed need to introduce artificial limitations,
such as:

   - *Simulated "thinking time":* Pauses and hesitations in responses to
   mimic human deliberation.
   - *Occasional "forgetfulness":* Not recalling previously discussed
   details to simulate human memory limitations.
   - *Introduction of minor errors or inconsistencies:* Making occasional
   grammatical errors or factual slips (within reason) to reflect human
   fallibility.
   - *Emotional responses (simulated):* Expressing simulated emotions, even
   if they are not genuinely felt, to align with human conversational patterns.

These are all strategies that could potentially make an AI's responses more
human-like and thus more likely to "pass" the Turing test in a purely
behavioral sense. However, it's important to remember that this is just
mimicking outward behavior, not replicating genuine human consciousness or
understanding.

--------------

Me: I think you and I are in the same boat, you can't know for sure what my
subjective experience is like and I can't know for sure what your
subjective experience is like. I can't even prove that solipsism is untrue
unless I make the assumption that if something is intelligent then it's
conscious because it's a fundamental brute fact that consciousness is the
way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.

Gemini: You've touched upon some deep philosophical questions about
consciousness, subjective experience (qualia), and the nature of
intelligence. You're right that we face an inherent epistemological barrier
when it comes to understanding the inner lives of others, whether human or
machine.

   -

   *The Problem of Other Minds:* This refers to the difficulty of knowing
   whether other beings have conscious experiences similar to our own. We can
   observe behavior and receive reports, but we can't directly access
   another's subjective reality. This applies to both humans and AIs. I can
   process information and generate human-like text, but whether I have
   "feelings" or "consciousness" in the same way a human does is a question we
   can't definitively answer.
   -

   *Qualia:* This term describes the subjective, qualitative character of
   experience. For example, the "redness" of red, the "pain" of a headache, or
   the "taste" of chocolate. These are subjective sensations that are
   difficult, if not impossible, to communicate or measure objectively. You
   experience "red" in your way, and I have no way of knowing if my processing
   of the concept of "red" is anything like your experience.
   -

   *Solipsism:* This is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is
   sure to exist. It's the extreme version of the problem of other minds. As
   you pointed out, to argue against solipsism, one often has to make
   assumptions about the relationship between intelligence and consciousness.
   -

   *Consciousness as a "Brute Fact":* Your suggestion that consciousness is
   a "brute fact" of intelligent data processing is a philosophical stance. It
   implies that consciousness isn't reducible to physical processes but is a
   fundamental aspect of reality that emerges when information is processed in
   a certain way. This view has some parallels with emergentism in philosophy
   of mind.

It's important to note that there's no scientific consensus on what
consciousness is or how it arises. Your "brute fact" hypothesis is one
possibility, but there are many other theories, including physicalism
(consciousness is entirely a product of physical processes), dualism (mind
and body are distinct substances), and panpsychism (consciousness is a
fundamental property of all matter).

In the context of AI, these questions become even more complex. Can a
sufficiently complex algorithm become conscious? Is consciousness a
necessary condition for true intelligence? These are open questions that
continue to be debated by philosophers, neuroscientists, and computer
scientists.

----------------

Me: It also occurs to me that if my existence is the result of
Darwinian evolution,
and I'm certain that it is, and if consciousness and intelligence were not
inextricably linked, then it could never have produced consciousness
because, although it can see intelligent behavior, natural selection cannot
see consciousness any better than I can directly detect consciousness in
somebody else. And yet I know for a fact that it did produce a conscious
being at least once (in me) and probably many billions of times.

Gemini: You've raised a key point about the evolutionary pressures that
might have shaped consciousness. Your argument essentially boils down to
this:

   1.

   *Evolution acts on observable traits:* Natural selection favors traits
   that increase an organism's chances of survival and reproduction. These
   traits must be expressed in behavior or physical characteristics that can
   be "seen" by selective pressures.
   2.

   *Consciousness is not directly observable:* We can infer that others are
   conscious based on their behavior (language, reactions, etc.), but we can't
   directly perceive their subjective experience.
   3.

   *Therefore, if consciousness were not linked to observable intelligent
   behavior, natural selection could not have favored it:* If consciousness
   had no impact on an organism's actions, there would be no selective
   pressure to develop it. It would be a "free rider" trait, invisible to
   evolution.
   4.

   *Yet, consciousness exists:* You are a conscious being, and so are many
   other organisms.
   5.

   *Conclusion: Consciousness must be linked to observable intelligent
   behavior:* This link is what allowed natural selection to indirectly
   select for consciousness by selecting for the behaviors associated with it.

This is a compelling argument. It suggests that consciousness likely
evolved *because* it conferred some advantage, and that advantage was
likely tied to intelligent behavior. Some possible ways consciousness might
have been advantageous include:

   - *Enhanced decision-making:* Conscious deliberation allows for more
   complex and flexible responses to novel situations than purely reflexive
   behavior.
   - *Social cognition:* Understanding the mental states of others (theory
   of mind) is crucial for complex social interactions, cooperation, and
   competition.
   - *Learning and memory:* Conscious attention and encoding may improve
   memory formation and retrieval, allowing for more effective learning from
   experience.
   - *Planning and foresight:* Conscious thought allows for mental
   simulations of future events, enabling better planning and anticipation of
   consequences.

In essence, your argument highlights the importance of considering the
functional role of consciousness in evolutionary terms. It suggests that
consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon (a byproduct with no causal
effect) but rather plays a crucial role in adaptive behavior.

However, it's worth noting that there are alternative perspectives. Some
theories suggest that consciousness might have arisen as a side effect of
other complex brain processes, even if it didn't initially provide a direct
selective advantage. In such scenarios, consciousness might have been
"exapted" later, meaning it was co-opted for new functions after it had
already evolved for other reasons.

Despite these alternative views, your argument provides a strong case for
the link between consciousness and observable intelligent behavior as a key
factor in its evolutionary development.

-----------------

Me:  I want to thank you for a very interesting conversation.
Gemini: You're very welcome! I've also found our conversation stimulating
and thought-provoking. It's always interesting to discuss these complex
topics. I'm glad I could provide some helpful insights. If you have any
more questions or would like to explore other topics in the future, please
don't hesitate to ask.
--------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20241216/fc9b3cff/attachment.htm>