[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:28 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Turing Church newsletter. More thoughts on sentient computers. Perhaps
> digital computers can be sentient after all, with their own type of
> consciousness and free will.
> https://www.turingchurch.com/p/more-thoughts-on-sentient-computers
> _______________________________________________
>

Hi Giulio,

Very nice article.

I would say the Turing Test sits at the limits of empirical testability in
the problem of Other Minds. If tests of knowledge, intelligence, probing
thoughts, interactions, tests of understanding, etc. cannot detect the
presence of a mind, then what else could? I have never seen any test that
is more powerful, so if the Turing Test is insufficient, if testing for
identical  behavior between two identical minds is not enough to verify the
presence of consciousness (either in both or in neither) I would think that
all tests are insufficient, and there is no third-person objective test of
consciousness. (This may be so, but it would not be a fault of Turing's
Test, but rather I think due to fundamental limits of knowability imposed
by the fact that no observer is ever directly acquainted with external
reality (as everything could be a dream or illusion).

ChatGPT in current incarnations may be limited, but the algorithm that
underlies it is all that is necessary to achieve general intelligence. That
is to say, all intelligence comes down to predicting the next element of a
sequence. See for example, the algorithm for universe artificial
intelligence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIXI which uses just such a
mechanism). To understand why this kind of predictive capacity leads to
universal general intelligence, consider that in order to predict the next
most likely sequence of an output requires building general models of all
kinds of systems. If I provide a GPT with a list of chess moves, and ask
what is the next best chess move to follow in this list, then somewhere in
its model is something that understands chess playing. If I provide it a
program in Python and ask it to rewrite the program in Java, then somewhere
in it are models of both the python and java programming languages. Trained
on enough data, and provided with enough memory, I see no fundamental
limits to what a GPT could learn to do or ultimately be capable of.

Regarding "passive" vs. "active" consciousness. Any presumed passivity of
consciousness quickly disappears whenever one turns attention to the fact
that they are conscious or talks about their consciousness. The moment one
stops to say "I am conscious." or "I am seeing red right now." or "I am in
pain.", then their conscious perceptions, their thoughts and feelings, have
already taken on a casual and active role. It is no longer possible to
explain the behavior of the system without factoring in the causes
underlying those statements to be made, causes which may involve the
presence of conscious states. Here is a good write up of the difficulties
one inevitably encounters if one tries to separate consciousness from the
behavior of talking about consciousness:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fdEWWr8St59bXLbQr/zombies-zombies

Regarding the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness, I
do not see any mechanism by which the randomness of quantum mechanics could
affect the properties or capabilities of the contained minds. I view
quantum mechanics as introducing a fork() to a process (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(system_call) ). The entire system (of
all processes) can be simulated deterministically, by copying the whole
state, mutating a variable through every possible value it may have, then
continuing the computation. Seen at this level, (much like the level at
which many-worlds conceive of QM) QM is fully deterministic. Eliminating
the other branches by saying they don't exist (ala Copenhagen), in my view,
does not and cannot add anything to the capacities of those minds within
any branch. It is equivalent to killing all but one of the forked processes
randomly. But how can that affect the properties of the computations
performed within any one forked process, which are by definition isolated
and unaffected by the goings-on in the other forked processes?

(Note: I do think consciousness and quantum mechanics are related, but it
is not that QM explains consciousness, but the reverse, consciousness (our
status as observers) explains QM, as I detail here:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Why_Quantum_Mechanics )

Further, regarding randomness in our computers, many modern CPUs have
instructions called RD_SEED and RD_RAND which are based on hardware random
number generators, typically thermal noise, which may ultimately be
affected by quantum unpredictable effects. Would you say that an AI using
such a hardware instruction would be sentient, while one using a
pseudorandom number generator (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator
) would not?

On free will, I like you, take the compatibilist view. I would say,
determinism is not only compatible with implementing an agent's will, but
it is a requirement if that agent's will is to be implemented with a high
degree of fidelity. Non-determinateness, of any kind, functions only to
introduce errors and undermine the fidelity of the system, and thereby
drift away from a true representation of some agent's will. But then, where
does unpredictability come from? I think the answer is simply that many
computations, especially sophisticated and complex ones, are chaotic in
nature. There are no analytic technique to compute and predict their future
states, they must be simulated (or emulated) to work out their future
computational states. This is as true for a brain as it is for a computer
program simulating a brain. The only way to see what one will do is to play
it out (either in vivo or in silico). Thus, the actions of such a process
are not only unpredictable to the entity itself, but also any other
entities around it, and even a God-like mind. The only way God (or the
universe) could know what you would do in such a situation would be to
simulate you to such a sufficient level of accuracy that it would in
effect, reinstate you and your consciousness. Thus your own mind and
conscious states are indispensable to the whole operation. The universe
cannot unfold without bringing your consciousness into the picture, and
God, or Omega (in Newcomb's paradox) likewise cannot figure out what you
will do without also invoking your consciousness. This chaotic
unpredictably, I think, is sufficient to explain the unpredictability of
conscious agents or complex programs, without having to introduce
fundamental randomness into the lower layers of the computation or the
substrate.

Note that this is just how I see things, and is not to say my view is right
or that other views are not valid. I would of course welcome any
discussion, criticism, or questions on these ideas or others related to
these topics.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230220/a15ea909/attachment.htm>