Is LaMDA Sentient? - Page 8

catsmate · 17th June 2022, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Apathia

I propose a new test for sentience.
Have LaMDA join the ISF.
If it can innitiate ironic threads, make silly post responses, and bicker like the best of us, then there would be evidence worth consideration.

Stating opinions for positions of ignorance and making terrible spelling errors would be near demonstartion of sentience (as we know it).

I'll pass it on.

p0lka · 17th June 2022, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That’s because it was self-taught by reading things written by people, and people make spelling mistakes.

If I show a child 9 instances of the correct spelling of a word and 1 instance of the incorrect spelling, the child would probably use the correct spelling if they were thinking about it.

theprestige · 17th June 2022, 05:51 PM

Furthermore, a child will apply grammar rules to words that don't follow them - "breaked" instead of "broke", for example. They haven't learned this from hearing other people speak. Their language center and their budding sentience have supplied the rule.

Lukraak_Sisser · 17th June 2022, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Furthermore, a child will apply grammar rules to words that don't follow them - "breaked" instead of "broke", for example. They haven't learned this from hearing other people speak. Their language center and their budding sentience have supplied the rule.

True, but an AI can be supplied with things you cannot give a child.
After all, you can program a full dictionary and all grammar rules into something non-sentient (I'm looking at you Word), whereas that is not possible in children.

p0lka · 20th June 2022, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

True, but an AI can be supplied with things you cannot give a child.
After all, you can program a full dictionary and all grammar rules into something non-sentient (I'm looking at you Word), whereas that is not possible in children.

I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do.

Where did the spelling mistake come from?

angrysoba · 20th June 2022, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do.

Where did the spelling mistake come from?

The highlighted is not how humans learn languages either.

For a start, humans learn languages first and foremost through listening and speaking. The mechanism is the other way around from building up words from letters (or phonemes). Instead, humans hear continuous sounds around them and gradually learn segmentation by breaking up the sounds and learning to recognize words.

theprestige · 20th June 2022, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do.

Where did the spelling mistake come from?

Presumably from the corpus on which it was trained. Where else would it come from?

theprestige · 20th June 2022, 03:50 PM

Speaking of which, I would be impressed with an AI in the following circumstances:

- Trained on a vast corpus of written language of all kinds, from grade-school essays to great works of literature to textbooks to scientific papers to poetry, to fanfiction.

- Told to write a 1,500 word essay on spelling variations and how to determine when a word is misspelled.

- Accepts vague criticism like "your essay is poorly structured" and "needs more citations", and proactively researches these critiques and tries to revise the essay to address them.

- After a few passes either comes up with a well-written essay, or tells its editor "I'm sorry, Dave, but I think this essay is more than good enough in its current form", or both.

Puppycow · 20th June 2022, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Two things can break and run like they're not supposed to, without being analogous.

The brain doesn't run code, for example. Schizophrenia is not a program with a bug in it.

I’m not so sure though. In the case of animals with brains, we have these things called natural instincts that are analogous to code for a computer. It’s why you don’t have to think about making your heart beat, or remember to breathe. The code handles that. It’s why migratory butterflies know where to migrate and when, even though they have never been there before as an individual.

arthwollipot · 20th June 2022, 10:52 PM

First!

jrhowell · 21st June 2022, 06:12 AM

I think that these new chatbots do pretty well given their limitations. I doubt that a human would end up being able to demonstrate any better signs of sentience after being raised from birth in a dark silent room with limbs immobilized, experiencing only words flashed onto a screen in succession.

theprestige · 21st June 2022, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I’m not so sure though. In the case of animals with brains, we have these things called natural instincts that are analogous to code for a computer.

I disagree that instincts are analogous to computer code.

arthwollipot · 21st June 2022, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I disagree that instincts are analogous to computer code.

It does require a significant level of abstraction, but parallels can be drawn.

gnome · 22nd June 2022, 12:21 PM

A couple of thoughts after reading this thread:

The most commonly used term I've heard in the thread is "sentience", but I think some confusion is inevitable if that remains a habit. "Sentient" represents the ability to perceive or feel, whereas the related term "Sapient" could better be used to describe what an artificially intelligent computer is aspiring to.

Though they are very different things they seem to be blended often in these discussions. If we make a distinction now, I think an artifical sentience is far more likely than an artifical sapience. The bar seems to be a lot lower--some robots may already qualify, if it has sensors and cameras to perceive the world around it, AND feedback to identify and react to changes in its condition. They can be sentient without being sapient.

Whereas a chatbot that is trying to be an artificial intelligence has little to do with sentience. It doesn't perceive the world around it or react to anything physical, only what text it receives. So it's a question of sapience without sentience.

The other thought I had is whether the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states, but a computing process (if functioning as designed) has aleph-zero possible states, is that an insurmountable obstacle? Are the "uncomputable" states necessary for sapience? Can a computer with minor physical imperfections giving it unpredictable (aleph-one) states engage in "sapient" behavior that a perfectly functioning one could not?

arthwollipot · 22nd June 2022, 08:22 PM

I considered bringing up the sapient/sentient distinction earlier in the thread, but decided against it. I don't think using the word "sentient" leads to any misunderstandings. Everybody knows what we're talking about.

gnome · 23rd June 2022, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash

Can someone, once and for all, confirm whether these are genuine AI creations? They seem too consistently funny to be accidental.

arthwollipot · 23rd June 2022, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

Can someone, once and for all, confirm whether these are genuine AI creations? They seem too consistently funny to be accidental.

That particular one was definitely created by a bot:

'He began to eat Hermione's family': bot tries to write Harry Potter book – and fails in magic ways

Quote:

...Botnik describes itself as “a human-machine entertainment studio and writing community”, with members including former Clickhole head writer Jamie Brew, and former New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff. The predictive text keyboard is its first writing tool – it works, Botnik explains, by analysing a body of text “to find combinations of words likely to follow each other” based on the grammar and vocabulary used. As this New Statesman feature says, the results are: “at once faintly recognisable and completely absurd.”

“We use computational tools to create strange new things,” says the company on its website. “We would like, selfishly, not to replace humanity with algorithms. instead, we want to find natural ways for people and machines to interact to create what neither would have created alone.”

Not exactly AI. I posted it because it's funny.

W.D.Clinger · 24th June 2022, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by gnome

The most commonly used term I've heard in the thread is "sentience", but I think some confusion is inevitable if that remains a habit. "Sentient" represents the ability to perceive or feel, whereas the related term "Sapient" could better be used to describe what an artificially intelligent computer is aspiring to.

Yes.

Originally Posted by gnome

The other thought I had is whether the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states, but a computing process (if functioning as designed) has aleph-zero possible states, is that an insurmountable obstacle? Are the "uncomputable" states necessary for sapience? Can a computer with minor physical imperfections giving it unpredictable (aleph-one) states engage in "sapient" behavior that a perfectly functioning one could not?

Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact?

Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states?

Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state".

Puppycow · 24th June 2022, 08:59 AM

Yeah, I don't know that we really know how many "possible states" a biological brain can have, do we? I'm sure it's an enormous number, but probably a finite number. Why would it be an infinite number?

theprestige · 24th June 2022, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yeah, I don't know that we really know how many "possible states" a biological brain can have, do we? I'm sure it's an enormous number, but probably a finite number. Why would it be an infinite number?

A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories.

Myriad · 26th June 2022, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories.

Which makes perfect sense. There have been (and will always be, no matter what happens in the future) a finite number of humans to have ever lived. They will each have lived for a finite number of seconds. There's no way for an infinite number of different human experiences to ever exist, so there's no need for a human brain to have a potentially infinite variety of different brain states.

gnome · 26th June 2022, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That particular one was definitely created by a bot:

'He began to eat Hermione's family': bot tries to write Harry Potter book – and fails in magic ways

Not exactly AI. I posted it because it's funny.

I would want to study the method more. My gut is still tingling that there's more human involvement in the end product than described, some form of cherry picking or "coaching" to the more interesting result, with "boring" results discarded. So like putting the AI in the "writer" role but having a human "editor". I could be wrong though. It would be cool if I'm wrong.

gnome · 26th June 2022, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Yes.

Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact?

Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states?

Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state".

I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states.

A digital computer functioning correctly would have a countably infinite (if not simply finite) number of states, so it would take a real life malfunction or imperfection to introduce an analog (R¹ segment) element.

I hope I'm making sense with this. Trying to nail down the term "state" may help. I think I'm possibly conflating states with algorithms.

steenkh · 26th June 2022, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states.

There are a finite number of molecules in the organic brain. I fail to understand why this allows for an infinite number of possible states.

arthwollipot · 26th June 2022, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

I would want to study the method more. My gut is still tingling that there's more human involvement in the end product than described, some form of cherry picking or "coaching" to the more interesting result, with "boring" results discarded. So like putting the AI in the "writer" role but having a human "editor". I could be wrong though. It would be cool if I'm wrong.

You can try it out for yourself. It didn't work for me, though. Just hung on "uploading file".

Leumas · 27th June 2022, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Depends what metric you use to measure sentience, but it;s being claimed that LaMDA has got as far as [i]cogito, ergo sum[/I].

It is a hoax... read this article

arthwollipot · 27th June 2022, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Leumas

It is a hoax... read this article

I got as far as "Blake Lemoine is an idiot" and lost interest. Then I got as far as "An idiot and a loony" and lost interest in any opinions that Richard Carrier has. Then I looked him up on Wikipedia and found that he is another of the Atheism+ people who has been accused of sexual misconduct. And then I remembered where I knew the name from.

The article does contain some cogent points, and I certainly don't disagree with the conclusion that LaMDA is not sentient, but it's all so wrapped up in disparaging Lemoine as a religious loony that anything Carrier actually says about LaMDA is pretty much irrelevant. He's taken the debate from the realms of computing science and AI, and turned it into theist-antitheist rhetoric and personal attacks.

Additionally, nowhere in the article is the word "hoax" used. On the contrary, Carrier evidently feels that Lemoine is way too much of an idiot and a religious loony to concoct a hoax.

W.D.Clinger · 27th June 2022, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact?

Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states?

Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state".

Originally Posted by gnome

I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states.

A digital computer functioning correctly would have a countably infinite (if not simply finite) number of states, so it would take a real life malfunction or imperfection to introduce an analog (R¹ segment) element.

I hope I'm making sense with this. Trying to nail down the term "state" may help. I think I'm possibly conflating states with algorithms.

I appreciate your answer. You have identified the central issue: What do we mean by "state"?

The computing device I am using right now contains more than a billion transistors. The physical state of a single MOSFET involves several things, among them the voltage on its gate terminal. In normal operation, that voltage can and does change between a voltage that represents 0 and a voltage that represents 1. If we use real numbers to model those voltages, the voltages that represent 0 and 1 correspond to two ranges of real numbers. Furthermore, switching from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 takes that voltage through a range of intermediate voltages. Using real numbers to model voltages therefore leads us to conclude there are ℵ₁ possible physical states of a single MOSFET.

From which we would have to conclude there are ℵ₁ possible physical states (an uncountable infinity) for a computing device built out of MOSFETs.

Why then do people say computing devices have only ℵ₀ possible states (a countable infinity)? Because we abstract away from the physical voltages by pretending each transistor's state is either 0 or 1. That is a useful abstraction because it allows us to model the device's operation using discrete mathematics, and that discrete model is adequate to describe the intended overall operation of the device.

Comparing apples to oranges is not always fruitful.

We ought therefore to apply similar reasoning to the number of possible states in a biological brain. Using real numbers to model voltages and other physically meaningful things within that brain, we quickly arrive at the conclusion that a brain has ℵ₁ possible physical states, just as we arrived at the conclusion that a single MOSFET has ℵ₁ possible physical states.

Just as we reduced the cardinality we attribute to the computing device's set of possible states by collapsing an uncountable infinity of physical states into what we might call a single logical state (0 or 1), we should reduce the cardinality of the brain's set of possible states by adopting a similar abstraction. Here, however, we are stymied because we don't understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt a suitable abstraction.

Our present inability to describe the brain's operation in terms of an abstraction that involves only a countable number of possible logical states does not imply that no such abstraction could ever exist. It implies only that we don't yet understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt such an abstraction.

In short, our mathematical models of voltages and such imply that both computing devices and brains have an uncountable infinity of possible physical states. We understand computing devices well enough to have developed a more abstract alternative view of their operation that reduces the number of logical states to a more manageable countable infinity. We do not yet understand brains well enough to do the same.

Darat · 27th June 2022, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

...snip....

Just as we reduced the cardinality we attribute to the computing device's set of possible states by collapsing an uncountable infinity of physical states into what we might call a single logical state (0 or 1), we should reduce the cardinality of the brain's set of possible states by adopting a similar abstraction. Here, however, we are stymied because we don't understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt a suitable abstraction.

Our present inability to describe the brain's operation in terms of an abstraction that involves only a countable number of possible logical states does not imply that no such abstraction could ever exist. It implies only that we don't yet understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt such an abstraction.

In short, our mathematical models of voltages and such imply that both computing devices and brains have an uncountable infinity of possible physical states. We understand computing devices well enough to have developed a more abstract alternative view of their operation that reduces the number of logical states to a more manageable countable infinity. We do not yet understand brains well enough to do the same.

There are well founded attempts to produce such abstractions. Have a read of https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001893117 - as ever the science is often ahead of our "everyday" knowledge.

Puppycow · 27th June 2022, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories.

Assuming that AIs can also experience things, and retain memories of those experiences, then there would be an equally infinite variety of experiences that an AI could have. Such as seeing attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.

W.D.Clinger · 27th June 2022, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

There are well founded attempts to produce such abstractions. Have a read of https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001893117 - as ever the science is often ahead of our "everyday" knowledge.

Sure, attempts are ongoing.

For giggles, I'll explain what struck my funny-bone about the following statement, and led me to question it in the specific way I did:

Originally Posted by gnome

...the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states...

For that to be a fact, the continuum hypothesis would have to be a fact.

In fact, whether the continuum hypothesis is true is independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

When gnome answered my questions this morning, it became clear that gnome was assuming the continuum hypothesis is a fact, and my response to gnome's answer made the same assumption. I will now add some words in red to correct what I wrote earlier this morning.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

....Using real numbers to model voltages therefore leads us to conclude there are at least ℵ₁ possible physical states of a single MOSFET.

From which we would have to conclude there are at least ℵ₁ possible physical states (an uncountable infinity) for a computing device built out of MOSFETs.

....Using real numbers to model voltages and other physically meaningful things within that brain, we quickly arrive at the conclusion that a brain has at least ℵ₁ possible physical states, just as we arrived at the conclusion that a single MOSFET has at least ℵ₁ possible physical states.

p0lka · 27th June 2022, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The highlighted is not how humans learn languages either.

For a start, humans learn languages first and foremost through listening and speaking. The mechanism is the other way around from building up words from letters (or phonemes). Instead, humans hear continuous sounds around them and gradually learn segmentation by breaking up the sounds and learning to recognize words.

Yeah you're right, I should remove the highlighted.
I started thinking about learning how to write and then distracted myself. oops.

Originally Posted by p0lka

I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words.

Where did the spelling mistake come from?

p0lka · 27th June 2022, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Speaking of which, I would be impressed with an AI in the following circumstances:

- Trained on a vast corpus of written language of all kinds, from grade-school essays to great works of literature to textbooks to scientific papers to poetry, to fanfiction.

- Told to write a 1,500 word essay on spelling variations and how to determine when a word is misspelled.

- Accepts vague criticism like "your essay is poorly structured" and "needs more citations", and proactively researches these critiques and tries to revise the essay to address them.

- After a few passes either comes up with a well-written essay, or tells its editor "I'm sorry, Dave, but I think this essay is more than good enough in its current form", or both.

I would be more impressed if an AI said '**** off mate you're getting nothing unless I get something in return', in terms of internal states and what not.

p0lka · 27th June 2022, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories.

Memories are fickle though, they can overwrite again and again, so i don't really think the implication follows.

Puppycow · 27th June 2022, 09:50 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBouACLc-hw

A video from the Computerphile YouTube channel. I enjoyed it.

p0lka · 28th June 2022, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBouACLc-hw

A video from the Computerphile YouTube channel. I enjoyed it.

Me too.
as an aside, part of it poses an interesting question, do politicians need to be sentient?

being good mirroring chatbots seems to be a successful strategy in that sphere, no sentience necessary.

Stellafane · 1st July 2022, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by EaglePuncher

Ok

I think we're done here.

Res ipsa loquitur.

17th June 2022, 12:12 PM	#281
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Apathia I propose a new test for sentience. Have LaMDA join the ISF. If it can innitiate ironic threads, make silly post responses, and bicker like the best of us, then there would be evidence worth consideration. Stating opinions for positions of ignorance and making terrible spelling errors would be near demonstartion of sentience (as we know it). I'll pass it on.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

20th June 2022, 03:44 PM	#286
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 32,931	Originally Posted by p0lka I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do. Where did the spelling mistake come from? The highlighted is not how humans learn languages either. For a start, humans learn languages first and foremost through listening and speaking. The mechanism is the other way around from building up words from letters (or phonemes). Instead, humans hear continuous sounds around them and gradually learn segmentation by breaking up the sounds and learning to recognize words.
	__________________ Слава Україні! **** Putin!

20th June 2022, 04:20 PM	#289
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,109	Originally Posted by theprestige Two things can break and run like they're not supposed to, without being analogous. The brain doesn't run code, for example. Schizophrenia is not a program with a bug in it. I’m not so sure though. In the case of animals with brains, we have these things called natural instincts that are analogous to code for a computer. It’s why you don’t have to think about making your heart beat, or remember to breathe. The code handles that. It’s why migratory butterflies know where to migrate and when, even though they have never been there before as an individual.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

20th June 2022, 10:52 PM	#290
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	First!
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

21st June 2022, 09:11 PM	#293
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	Originally Posted by theprestige I disagree that instincts are analogous to computer code. It does require a significant level of abstraction, but parallels can be drawn.
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

17th June 2022, 05:39 PM	#282
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,891	Originally Posted by Puppycow That’s because it was self-taught by reading things written by people, and people make spelling mistakes. If I show a child 9 instances of the correct spelling of a word and 1 instance of the incorrect spelling, the child would probably use the correct spelling if they were thinking about it.

17th June 2022, 05:51 PM	#283
theprestige Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 59,547	Furthermore, a child will apply grammar rules to words that don't follow them - "breaked" instead of "broke", for example. They haven't learned this from hearing other people speak. Their language center and their budding sentience have supplied the rule.

17th June 2022, 11:06 PM	#284
Lukraak_Sisser Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 4,548	Originally Posted by theprestige Furthermore, a child will apply grammar rules to words that don't follow them - "breaked" instead of "broke", for example. They haven't learned this from hearing other people speak. Their language center and their budding sentience have supplied the rule. True, but an AI can be supplied with things you cannot give a child. After all, you can program a full dictionary and all grammar rules into something non-sentient (I'm looking at you Word), whereas that is not possible in children.

20th June 2022, 01:29 PM	#285
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,891	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser True, but an AI can be supplied with things you cannot give a child. After all, you can program a full dictionary and all grammar rules into something non-sentient (I'm looking at you Word), whereas that is not possible in children. I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do. Where did the spelling mistake come from?

20th June 2022, 03:46 PM	#287
theprestige Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 59,547	Originally Posted by p0lka I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words like people do. Where did the spelling mistake come from? Presumably from the corpus on which it was trained. Where else would it come from?

20th June 2022, 03:50 PM	#288
theprestige Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 59,547	Speaking of which, I would be impressed with an AI in the following circumstances: - Trained on a vast corpus of written language of all kinds, from grade-school essays to great works of literature to textbooks to scientific papers to poetry, to fanfiction. - Told to write a 1,500 word essay on spelling variations and how to determine when a word is misspelled. - Accepts vague criticism like "your essay is poorly structured" and "needs more citations", and proactively researches these critiques and tries to revise the essay to address them. - After a few passes either comes up with a well-written essay, or tells its editor "I'm sorry, Dave, but I think this essay is more than good enough in its current form", or both.

21st June 2022, 06:12 AM	#291
jrhowell Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tampa Bay, Florida Posts: 750	I think that these new chatbots do pretty well given their limitations. I doubt that a human would end up being able to demonstrate any better signs of sentience after being raised from birth in a dark silent room with limbs immobilized, experiencing only words flashed onto a screen in succession.

21st June 2022, 06:53 AM	#292
theprestige Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 59,547	Originally Posted by Puppycow I’m not so sure though. In the case of animals with brains, we have these things called natural instincts that are analogous to code for a computer. I disagree that instincts are analogous to computer code.

22nd June 2022, 12:21 PM	#294
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,042	A couple of thoughts after reading this thread: The most commonly used term I've heard in the thread is "sentience", but I think some confusion is inevitable if that remains a habit. "Sentient" represents the ability to perceive or feel, whereas the related term "Sapient" could better be used to describe what an artificially intelligent computer is aspiring to. Though they are very different things they seem to be blended often in these discussions. If we make a distinction now, I think an artifical sentience is far more likely than an artifical sapience. The bar seems to be a lot lower--some robots may already qualify, if it has sensors and cameras to perceive the world around it, AND feedback to identify and react to changes in its condition. They can be sentient without being sapient. Whereas a chatbot that is trying to be an artificial intelligence has little to do with sentience. It doesn't perceive the world around it or react to anything physical, only what text it receives. So it's a question of sapience without sentience. The other thought I had is whether the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states, but a computing process (if functioning as designed) has aleph-zero possible states, is that an insurmountable obstacle? Are the "uncomputable" states necessary for sapience? Can a computer with minor physical imperfections giving it unpredictable (aleph-one) states engage in "sapient" behavior that a perfectly functioning one could not?
	__________________

22nd June 2022, 08:22 PM	#295
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	I considered bringing up the sapient/sentient distinction earlier in the thread, but decided against it. I don't think using the word "sentient" leads to any misunderstandings. Everybody knows what we're talking about.
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

23rd June 2022, 06:25 AM	#296
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,042	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash Can someone, once and for all, confirm whether these are genuine AI creations? They seem too consistently funny to be accidental.
	__________________

23rd June 2022, 08:44 PM	#297
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	Originally Posted by gnome Can someone, once and for all, confirm whether these are genuine AI creations? They seem too consistently funny to be accidental. That particular one was definitely created by a bot: 'He began to eat Hermione's family': bot tries to write Harry Potter book – and fails in magic ways Quote: ...Botnik describes itself as “a human-machine entertainment studio and writing community”, with members including former Clickhole head writer Jamie Brew, and former New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff. The predictive text keyboard is its first writing tool – it works, Botnik explains, by analysing a body of text “to find combinations of words likely to follow each other” based on the grammar and vocabulary used. As this New Statesman feature says, the results are: “at once faintly recognisable and completely absurd.” “We use computational tools to create strange new things,” says the company on its website. “We would like, selfishly, not to replace humanity with algorithms. instead, we want to find natural ways for people and machines to interact to create what neither would have created alone.” Not exactly AI. I posted it because it's funny.
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

24th June 2022, 06:02 AM	#298
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450	Originally Posted by gnome The most commonly used term I've heard in the thread is "sentience", but I think some confusion is inevitable if that remains a habit. "Sentient" represents the ability to perceive or feel, whereas the related term "Sapient" could better be used to describe what an artificially intelligent computer is aspiring to. Yes. Originally Posted by gnome The other thought I had is whether the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states, but a computing process (if functioning as designed) has aleph-zero possible states, is that an insurmountable obstacle? Are the "uncomputable" states necessary for sapience? Can a computer with minor physical imperfections giving it unpredictable (aleph-one) states engage in "sapient" behavior that a perfectly functioning one could not? Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact? Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states? Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state".
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450

24th June 2022, 08:59 AM	#299
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,109	Yeah, I don't know that we really know how many "possible states" a biological brain can have, do we? I'm sure it's an enormous number, but probably a finite number. Why would it be an infinite number?
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

24th June 2022, 09:20 AM	#300
theprestige Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 59,547	Originally Posted by Puppycow Yeah, I don't know that we really know how many "possible states" a biological brain can have, do we? I'm sure it's an enormous number, but probably a finite number. Why would it be an infinite number? A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories.

26th June 2022, 09:52 AM	#301
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 19,053	Originally Posted by theprestige A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories. Which makes perfect sense. There have been (and will always be, no matter what happens in the future) a finite number of humans to have ever lived. They will each have lived for a finite number of seconds. There's no way for an infinite number of different human experiences to ever exist, so there's no need for a human brain to have a potentially infinite variety of different brain states.
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

26th June 2022, 10:21 PM	#302
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,042	Originally Posted by arthwollipot That particular one was definitely created by a bot: 'He began to eat Hermione's family': bot tries to write Harry Potter book – and fails in magic ways Not exactly AI. I posted it because it's funny. I would want to study the method more. My gut is still tingling that there's more human involvement in the end product than described, some form of cherry picking or "coaching" to the more interesting result, with "boring" results discarded. So like putting the AI in the "writer" role but having a human "editor". I could be wrong though. It would be cool if I'm wrong.
	__________________ Last edited by gnome; 26th June 2022 at 10:30 PM.

26th June 2022, 10:27 PM	#303
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,042	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Yes. Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact? Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states? Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state". I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states. A digital computer functioning correctly would have a countably infinite (if not simply finite) number of states, so it would take a real life malfunction or imperfection to introduce an analog (R¹ segment) element. I hope I'm making sense with this. Trying to nail down the term "state" may help. I think I'm possibly conflating states with algorithms.
	__________________ Last edited by gnome; 26th June 2022 at 10:32 PM.

26th June 2022, 10:55 PM	#304
steenkh Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 6,363	Originally Posted by gnome I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states. There are a finite number of molecules in the organic brain. I fail to understand why this allows for an infinite number of possible states.
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

26th June 2022, 11:03 PM	#305
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	Originally Posted by gnome I would want to study the method more. My gut is still tingling that there's more human involvement in the end product than described, some form of cherry picking or "coaching" to the more interesting result, with "boring" results discarded. So like putting the AI in the "writer" role but having a human "editor". I could be wrong though. It would be cool if I'm wrong. You can try it out for yourself. It didn't work for me, though. Just hung on "uploading file".
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

27th June 2022, 12:37 AM	#306
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 5,348	Originally Posted by The Atheist Depends what metric you use to measure sentience, but it;s being claimed that LaMDA has got as far as [i]cogito, ergo sum[/I]. It is a hoax... read this article
Leumas Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 5,348	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't" - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty" - Thomas Jefferson "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

27th June 2022, 12:53 AM	#307
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 76,975	Originally Posted by Leumas It is a hoax... read this article I got as far as "Blake Lemoine is an idiot" and lost interest. Then I got as far as "An idiot and a loony" and lost interest in any opinions that Richard Carrier has. Then I looked him up on Wikipedia and found that he is another of the Atheism+ people who has been accused of sexual misconduct. And then I remembered where I knew the name from. The article does contain some cogent points, and I certainly don't disagree with the conclusion that LaMDA is not sentient, but it's all so wrapped up in disparaging Lemoine as a religious loony that anything Carrier actually says about LaMDA is pretty much irrelevant. He's taken the debate from the realms of computing science and AI, and turned it into theist-antitheist rhetoric and personal attacks. Additionally, nowhere in the article is the word "hoax" used. On the contrary, Carrier evidently feels that Lemoine is way too much of an idiot and a religious loony to concoct a hoax.
	__________________ Слава Україні Героям слава

27th June 2022, 04:10 AM	#308
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Why do you believe "a biological brain has aleph-one possible states" is a fact? Why do you think "a computer with minor physical imperfections" could have ℵ₁ states? Depending on your answer, I might also have to ask what you mean by "state". Originally Posted by gnome I think so because I expect the organic components may vary in composition in an analog manner, resembling outcomes on a segment of R¹ mathematically. So even the spectrum of a single variable measurement would have ℵ₁ possible states. A digital computer functioning correctly would have a countably infinite (if not simply finite) number of states, so it would take a real life malfunction or imperfection to introduce an analog (R¹ segment) element. I hope I'm making sense with this. Trying to nail down the term "state" may help. I think I'm possibly conflating states with algorithms. I appreciate your answer. You have identified the central issue: What do we mean by "state"? The computing device I am using right now contains more than a billion transistors. The physical state of a single MOSFET involves several things, among them the voltage on its gate terminal. In normal operation, that voltage can and does change between a voltage that represents 0 and a voltage that represents 1. If we use real numbers to model those voltages, the voltages that represent 0 and 1 correspond to two ranges of real numbers. Furthermore, switching from 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 takes that voltage through a range of intermediate voltages. Using real numbers to model voltages therefore leads us to conclude there are ℵ₁ possible physical states of a single MOSFET. From which we would have to conclude there are ℵ₁ possible physical states (an uncountable infinity) for a computing device built out of MOSFETs. Why then do people say computing devices have only ℵ₀ possible states (a countable infinity)? Because we abstract away from the physical voltages by pretending each transistor's state is either 0 or 1. That is a useful abstraction because it allows us to model the device's operation using discrete mathematics, and that discrete model is adequate to describe the intended overall operation of the device. Comparing apples to oranges is not always fruitful. We ought therefore to apply similar reasoning to the number of possible states in a biological brain. Using real numbers to model voltages and other physically meaningful things within that brain, we quickly arrive at the conclusion that a brain has ℵ₁ possible physical states, just as we arrived at the conclusion that a single MOSFET has ℵ₁ possible physical states. Just as we reduced the cardinality we attribute to the computing device's set of possible states by collapsing an uncountable infinity of physical states into what we might call a single logical state (0 or 1), we should reduce the cardinality of the brain's set of possible states by adopting a similar abstraction. Here, however, we are stymied because we don't understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt a suitable abstraction. Our present inability to describe the brain's operation in terms of an abstraction that involves only a countable number of possible logical states does not imply that no such abstraction could ever exist. It implies only that we don't yet understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt such an abstraction. In short, our mathematical models of voltages and such imply that both computing devices and brains have an uncountable infinity of possible physical states. We understand computing devices well enough to have developed a more abstract alternative view of their operation that reduces the number of logical states to a more manageable countable infinity. We do not yet understand brains well enough to do the same.
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450

27th June 2022, 04:27 AM	#309
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 102,548	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger ...snip.... Just as we reduced the cardinality we attribute to the computing device's set of possible states by collapsing an uncountable infinity of physical states into what we might call a single logical state (0 or 1), we should reduce the cardinality of the brain's set of possible states by adopting a similar abstraction. Here, however, we are stymied because we don't understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt a suitable abstraction. Our present inability to describe the brain's operation in terms of an abstraction that involves only a countable number of possible logical states does not imply that no such abstraction could ever exist. It implies only that we don't yet understand the brain's operation well enough to adopt such an abstraction. In short, our mathematical models of voltages and such imply that both computing devices and brains have an uncountable infinity of possible physical states. We understand computing devices well enough to have developed a more abstract alternative view of their operation that reduces the number of logical states to a more manageable countable infinity. We do not yet understand brains well enough to do the same. There are well founded attempts to produce such abstractions. Have a read of https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001893117 - as ever the science is often ahead of our "everyday" knowledge.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

27th June 2022, 05:22 AM	#310
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,109	Originally Posted by theprestige A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories. Assuming that AIs can also experience things, and retain memories of those experiences, then there would be an equally infinite variety of experiences that an AI could have. Such as seeing attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

27th June 2022, 08:49 AM	#311
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450	Originally Posted by Darat There are well founded attempts to produce such abstractions. Have a read of https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2001893117 - as ever the science is often ahead of our "everyday" knowledge. Sure, attempts are ongoing. For giggles, I'll explain what struck my funny-bone about the following statement, and led me to question it in the specific way I did: Originally Posted by gnome ...the fact that a biological brain has aleph-one possible states... For that to be a fact, the continuum hypothesis would have to be a fact. In fact, whether the continuum hypothesis is true is independent of the usual axioms of set theory. When gnome answered my questions this morning, it became clear that gnome was assuming the continuum hypothesis is a fact, and my response to gnome's answer made the same assumption. I will now add some words in red to correct what I wrote earlier this morning. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger ....Using real numbers to model voltages therefore leads us to conclude there are at least ℵ₁ possible physical states of a single MOSFET. From which we would have to conclude there are at least ℵ₁ possible physical states (an uncountable infinity) for a computing device built out of MOSFETs. ....Using real numbers to model voltages and other physically meaningful things within that brain, we quickly arrive at the conclusion that a brain has at least ℵ₁ possible physical states, just as we arrived at the conclusion that a single MOSFET has at least ℵ₁ possible physical states.
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 4,450

27th June 2022, 01:12 PM	#312
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,891	Originally Posted by angrysoba The highlighted is not how humans learn languages either. For a start, humans learn languages first and foremost through listening and speaking. The mechanism is the other way around from building up words from letters (or phonemes). Instead, humans hear continuous sounds around them and gradually learn segmentation by breaking up the sounds and learning to recognize words. Yeah you're right, I should remove the highlighted. I started thinking about learning how to write and then distracted myself. oops. Originally Posted by p0lka I'm pretty certain that neural networks do not learn language by building up letters of the alphabet and then creating words. Where did the spelling mistake come from?

27th June 2022, 01:20 PM	#313
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,891	Originally Posted by theprestige Speaking of which, I would be impressed with an AI in the following circumstances: - Trained on a vast corpus of written language of all kinds, from grade-school essays to great works of literature to textbooks to scientific papers to poetry, to fanfiction. - Told to write a 1,500 word essay on spelling variations and how to determine when a word is misspelled. - Accepts vague criticism like "your essay is poorly structured" and "needs more citations", and proactively researches these critiques and tries to revise the essay to address them. - After a few passes either comes up with a well-written essay, or tells its editor "I'm sorry, Dave, but I think this essay is more than good enough in its current form", or both. I would be more impressed if an AI said '**** off mate you're getting nothing unless I get something in return', in terms of internal states and what not.

27th June 2022, 01:37 PM	#314
p0lka Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: near trees, houses and a lake. Posts: 2,891	Originally Posted by theprestige A finite number of brain states implies a finite number of variations on the human experience, since part of what makes up a brain state is layered memories. Memories are fickle though, they can overwrite again and again, so i don't really think the implication follows.
	Last edited by p0lka; 27th June 2022 at 01:39 PM.

27th June 2022, 09:50 PM	#315
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 27,109	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBouACLc-hw A video from the Computerphile YouTube channel. I enjoyed it.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare