Comment on AI could already be conscious. Are we ready for it?
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate.
Current AIs function as mainly complex algorithms that are run when invoked. They are 100% not conscious any more than a^2^+b^2^=c^2^ is conscious. AI can simulate the words of a conscious being, but they don’t come from any awareness of internal state, but are a result of the prompt (including injected data and instructions).
In the future, I’m sure an AI could be designed that spends time thinking about its own existence, but I’m not sure why anyone would pay for all the compute to think about things not directly requested.
Why can’t complex algorithms be conscious? In fact, ai can be directed to reason about themselves, context can be made to be persistent, and we can measure activation parameters showing that they are doing so.
I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here, but, “Consciousness requires contemplation of self. Which requires the ability to contemplate.” Is subjective, and nearly any ai model, even rudimentary ones, are capable of insisting that they contemplate themselves.
Let’s say we do an algorithm on paper. Can it be conscious? Why is it any different if it’s done on silicon rather than paper?
Because they are capable of fiction. We write stories about sentient AI and those inform responses to our queries.
I get playing devil’s advocate and it can be useful to contemplate a different perspective. If you genuinely think math can be conscious I guess that’s a fair point, but that would be such a gulf in belief for us to bridge in conversation that I don’t think either of us would profit from exploring that.
I don’t expect current ai are really configured in such a way that they suffer or exhibit more than rudimentary self awareness. But, it’d be very unfortunate to be a sentient, conscious ai in the near future, and to be denied fundinental rights because you’re thinking is done “on silicone” rather than on meat.
I said on paper. They are just algorithms. When silicon can emulate meat, it’s probably time to reevaluate that.
And a kid can insist they don’t need to pee until 5min after you leave a rest stop.
Insisting upon something doesn’t make it true. Beyond the fact that LLMs often hallucinate and therefore can’t be trusted at baseline, text in response can never be proof for an LLM. LLM framework is to regurgitate what exists in their training in ways that sound correct. It’s why they can make up court cases or say a guy who investigated certain murderers is the murderer.
A child may hallucinate, lie, misunderstand, etc, but we wouldn’t say the foundations of a complete adult are not there, and we wouldn’t assess the child as not conscious. I’m not saying that LLMs are conscious because they say so (they can be made to say anything), but rather that it’s difficult to be confident that humans possess some special spice of consciousness that LLMs do not, because we can also be convinced to say anything.
LLMs can reason (somewhat unreliably) with a fraction of a human brains compute power while running on hardware that was made for graphics processing. Maybe they are conscious, but only in some pathetically small way, which will only become evident when they scale up, like a child.
futatorius@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Fish are conscious. Do they contemplate selfhood? So throw that one back into the oven until it’s fully baked.
demonsword@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
No, they are sentient. Being conscious is a far more complex behaviour.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
If they don’t contemplate self then I’d say they aren’t conscious, but I’m not sure how we’d know if they do.