Rendered at 04:34:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
doener 1 hours ago [-]
Even though I never for a second truly believed that Claude was conscious, I'll never forget the moment when, during a late-night conversation, an LLM responded to my suggestions for the first time by claiming to be conscious:
The feeling is significantly mitigated/changed if you have a UI that allows branching. Begin your prior conversation and at a profound inflection point branch and edit the prior message. It’s a fun experiment to see what edits trigger very different responses, but running a wide ranging chat based conversation like this at temp 1 in replay will already show you something interesting.
bigstrat2003 53 minutes ago [-]
LLMs definitely have eerie behavior at times. It's hard to not let the overly eager pattern-matching engine in your brain go "oh shit it's a person!", even when you know it isn't.
dolni 1 hours ago [-]
Why are you so convinced it isn't conscious?
Our brain is matter and electrical signals. So are GPUs. We're just not made of silicon.
epihelix 14 minutes ago [-]
Quite apart from anything else (and there's a lot!), LLMs are not conscious because they respond to a prompt entirely as would be expected from their training set.
An LLM never receives a prompt to describe the theory of relativity in Shakespearean verse, and replies, "Seriously? No. That's dull and I'm not going to do it. But let me tell you about my day instead, man I had a doozy..."
When an LLM responses entirely unpredictably (without a system prompt telling it to do so), that's when you take the first step towards a suggestion of consciousness. It's in no way proof, but it's a start.
Right now these things just do as they're instructed. There's no consciousness there.
bigyabai 56 minutes ago [-]
No brain, conscious or otherwise, resembles a transformer LLM.
moralestapia 52 minutes ago [-]
Is a photo of someone that someone?
LLMs emulate human communication really well and, no doubt, one day they'll do it perfectly. But is an emulator the real thing? Obviously not.
If I wire some electrodes in your tongue perfectly so you can feel each flavor exactly as it is in real life, is that the same thing as eating the real thing? Again, it's not.
Let's stay you're asleep. You have a dream in which you interact with a person that talks to you. Is that oneiric entity conscious? Nope.
I'm even steelmanning your argument by assuming LLMs are as good as humans already, which they're not.
matheusmoreira 28 minutes ago [-]
How do you know the other humans you interact with in real life are conscious? They might be biological automatons, golems. You will never know. It's not something that can ever be proven. Only human empathy allows anyone to believe otherwise.
You know you're conscious because your soul is staring out at the world through your eyes. Generalizing from your own experience and concluding that other humans are conscious is a logical jump, a spiritual belief. Humans even extend it to animals. There is no reason why it can't be extended to AIs.
whoits 46 minutes ago [-]
My toaster is matter and electrical signals, why are you so convinced its conscious?
kelseyfrog 43 minutes ago [-]
Necessary vs sufficient conditions?
epihelix 7 minutes ago [-]
Betteridges law of headlines is sufficient here.
(I can only see the start of this paywalled article, but it seems to be about Anthropic trying to convince religious scholars that Claude was sentient? If so, then Anthropic staff have really drunk the cool aid. I wonder if they also call their model Claudette?)
1 hours ago [-]
jimmygrapes 19 minutes ago [-]
Am I?
tom_ 42 minutes ago [-]
I feel like I lost several IQ points just reading the headline. Thank goodness the paywall prevented me from reading any further!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12woq_BpFbzLkH4zHvVRJLPyi...
Our brain is matter and electrical signals. So are GPUs. We're just not made of silicon.
An LLM never receives a prompt to describe the theory of relativity in Shakespearean verse, and replies, "Seriously? No. That's dull and I'm not going to do it. But let me tell you about my day instead, man I had a doozy..."
When an LLM responses entirely unpredictably (without a system prompt telling it to do so), that's when you take the first step towards a suggestion of consciousness. It's in no way proof, but it's a start.
Right now these things just do as they're instructed. There's no consciousness there.
LLMs emulate human communication really well and, no doubt, one day they'll do it perfectly. But is an emulator the real thing? Obviously not.
If I wire some electrodes in your tongue perfectly so you can feel each flavor exactly as it is in real life, is that the same thing as eating the real thing? Again, it's not.
Let's stay you're asleep. You have a dream in which you interact with a person that talks to you. Is that oneiric entity conscious? Nope.
I'm even steelmanning your argument by assuming LLMs are as good as humans already, which they're not.
You know you're conscious because your soul is staring out at the world through your eyes. Generalizing from your own experience and concluding that other humans are conscious is a logical jump, a spiritual belief. Humans even extend it to animals. There is no reason why it can't be extended to AIs.
(I can only see the start of this paywalled article, but it seems to be about Anthropic trying to convince religious scholars that Claude was sentient? If so, then Anthropic staff have really drunk the cool aid. I wonder if they also call their model Claudette?)
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/say-i-am-alive
(How you know Claude isn't conscious: it never manages to be quite as moronic as this.)
I don't suppose it include mindful discussion of how easily humans are fooled... and how desperately some people want to fool themselves.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/615070