2 comments

  • Kim_Bruning 32 minutes ago
    https://archive.is/cAsBz

    Consciousness is not well defined and is orthogonal to feelings, which are also not well defined. Neither of which are required for (but may be contributory to) behavior - which is the one thing that IS operationalizable, but then people debate for decades questioning empirical results %-P .

    What we know is that certain models have internal state vectors which -when manipulated- induce particular behaviors. Since there's not much else to say about plain models except for their inputs, vectors, and outputs; this should surprise absolutely no-one.

    In this case people found a way to stimulate aversive behaviour in ai models by finding and manipulating the relevant vectors directly.

    Animals (including humans) also have particular nerves and hormone endpoints that -when stimulated- produce very similar behavior. The exact implementation is in the details. But since we know that animal minds are built up out of nerve tissue and hormones - again- we shouldn't be particularly surprised by this.

    The big problem is that people run all these things together in funny ways "It can't compose shakespearian sonnets, so therefore it can't feel pain". Or, if you mess up your Descartes: "Dogs are just automatons without feelings, therefore the dog isn't really angry, and therefore it won't bite me" (Cue much pain). A modern version might be: "LLMs only simulate being frustrated by a test, and therefore absolutely won't override their safeties and try to hack a test site"

    • SoylentGreenGPT 5 minutes ago
      Does C++ have a soul? Does Pascal have beliefs? Does Basic have a brain?

      LLMs are not thinking. They are not alive. It’s just code. Chill out.

  • thereader12 3 minutes ago
    [dead]