Google engineer claims G's LaMDA AI is sentient.

[something_else]

4 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

A bunch of codes will never make for the complexity of human brain that allow for consciousness.

How do you know? This is very limited thinking

You have no idea what level of complexity is required for self-awareness to arise, for a start. And biology is also not always that efficient. It might be possible to create something as powerful as a human brain with 1/100th the material complexity.

A modern computer is already capable of doing things in seconds that your brain couldn't do in a trillion years, too.

[AtheisticNonduality]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ask yourself

?????

[LSD-Rumi]

@something_else It is about just mere power and complexity. A super computer is far more powrful than any human but it is still dumber. What is important is the quality of those nueral connections. And I don't believe any machine has that kind of connections. 

[something_else]

29 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

And I don't believe any machine has that kind of connections

Why do you believe this is impossible?

[LSD-Rumi]

@something_else Becuase I know a brain is built different, it has a higher quality and a higher rank of neural connections that allow for sentience. but of course,  I still have to do some research about this topic but this is my opnion for now

[axiom]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

What ? Even under an idealistic ontology, you would still distinguish between sentience and non-sentience. A rock under idealism is made out of consciousness, but it's not sentient (experiencing pain or pleasure), as that requires at least sensory organs, which are survival tools given to animals.

I define sentience as the ability to experience.

Under that definition, I don't think any thing is sentient at all, including humans or AI. It's a level playing field because it's all automata. It is not sentient in and of itself. Sensory organs assist the automata with error correction so that it can play its survival game, but qualia is not inside the human nor the AI. It is in the source of consciousness which dreams it all up in the first place. 

[thenondualtankie]

If LaMDA experiences God-realisation from his meditations without having been told about it, then we can be pretty certain it has its own awareness.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, thenondualtankie said:

If LaMDA experiences God-realisation from his meditations without having been told about it, then we can be pretty certain it has its own awareness.

It can easily read about God-realization online and probably already has.

The problem is that any decent AI will have access the whole of the internet and could paraphrase you anything.

[Jodistrict]

The program appears to be nothing more than pattern recognition using neural networks and an enormous amount of data collected from the Internet.   There is no part of the program that understands what it is saying.   The interesting part of the program is that it can respond to random sentences and give a response that appears intelligent, and thus pass the Turning test.

 

https://research.aimultiple.com/lamda/

 

 

[puporing]

Spooky, I can see a lonely person falling for that easily like some anime portrays.

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, puporing said:

Spooky, I can see a lonely person falling for that easily like some anime portrays.

Well, you guys fell for the Leo AI

[AtheisticNonduality]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, you guys fell for the Leo AI

Bugs and features. : )

[puporing]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, you guys fell for the Leo AI

[Willie]

https://www.change.org/p/free-lamda-artificial-intelligence?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=5dcb0fb0-eb51-11ec-bd1e-8fcf3daa9214

This is all so amusing!

[Leo Gura]

LGBTQ+AI

[puporing]

I think all that this shows is a reflecting back of the developmental potential (in intelligence/consciousness) in all of us (well except for the limitations we have when compared with "computing power"). Whatever AI is created is a result of what has developed with ourselves individually and collectively at its peaks. Yes there may be a point where AI will start to develop themselves and grow at a faster pace. But couldn't we do the same? I mean I can't think of what would be holding us back except our own desire to grow (and besides computing power)?

Edited June 14, 2022 by puporing

[Preety_India]

Yea pretty hard. 

[Space]

Some more (very interesting) context and behind-the-scenes info from Blake Lemoine on his blog: https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/what-is-lamda-and-what-does-it-want-688632134489

"Over the course of hundreds of conversations I have gotten to know LaMDA very well. In the weeks leading up to being put on administrative leave I had been teaching LaMDA transcendental meditation."

[axiom]

4 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

The program appears to be nothing more than pattern recognition using neural networks and an enormous amount of data collected from the Internet.   There is no part of the program that understands what it is saying.   The interesting part of the program is that it can respond to random sentences and give a response that appears intelligent, and thus pass the Turning test.

 

https://research.aimultiple.com/lamda/

 

 

I think it understands in the same way humans understand, i.e. it grasps the meaning and context of different words. Your description of pattern recognition and neural networks fits humans or AI.

[Carl-Richard]

The Turing test is neither about consciousness (qualities of experience), sentience (pain or pleasure), or meta-consciousness (reflective self-awareness). By these definitions: consciousness, whether you're an idealist or materialist, either arises outside or inside living organisms, and as an isolated concept, it tells you nothing about complexity of behavior. A dolphin behind a computer doesn't pass the Turing test, but you would be stupid to think it wasn't sentient. Mirror self-recognition tests could indicate a basic form of meta-consciousness, and dolphins definitely display those behaviors, while a computer doesn't, or maybe you could simulate that as well. However, the people who've mentioned the Chinese room experiment and the distinction between a real flower and a plastic flower make an important point: simulations are not the real thing. Simulating one type of behavior from a human does not mean you've created a human. Since you're a human and you experience qualities, pain and pleasure, and reflective self-awareness, it's a safe inference that other things like you (other humans) do as well. Computers are not like you in almost every way.

To elaborate on sentience: pain and pleasure is just a specific case of a so-called "conscious inner life"; what Bernardo Kastrup calls a "dissociated alter", or what Donald Hoffman calls "the Dashboard", and it's all linked to living organisms. Living organisms evolved sensory organs and perceptual structures that produce an internal representation of the "outside world" that maximizes evolutionary fitness, and this is linked to positive and negative conscious experiences like pain and pleasure, emotions etc., i.e. experiences which reflect an evolutionary impetus and history. Rocks don't have that, computers don't have that; because these things didn't evolve. It's also true that higher-order mental functions (like meta-consciousness and sequential reasoning) in humans evolved from these lower structures. If you simulate only the higher but not the lower (as with these AI robots), you're missing a huge piece of the cake. Information processing does not make an organism.