listen I am 100% here for the rights of non-human general intelligence, but no I will not entertain that kind of crock from an overambitious form of autocomplete.
You know “Grok” is not a sentient being, right? Please tell us you understand this simple fact- because you just defended a computer program as deserving the same freedoms as a human being.
I’m just a meat computer running fucked-up software written by the process of evolution. I honestly don’t know how sentient Grok or any modern AI system is and I’d wager you don’t either.
How sentient? Like on a scale of zero to sentience? None. It is non-sentient, it is a promptable autocomplete that offers best predicted sentences. Left to itself it does nothing, has no motivations, intentions, “will”, desire to survive/feed/duplicate etc. A houseplant has a higher sentience score.
An LLM is only one part of a complete AI agent. What exactly happens in a processer at inference time? What happens when you continuously prompt the system with stimuli?
If you believe that AI is “conscious” while it’s processing prompts, and also believe that we shouldn’t kill machine life, then AI companies are commiting genocide at an unprecedented scale.
For example, each AI model would be equivalent to a person taught everything in the training data. Any time you want something from them, instead of asking directly, you make a clone of them, let it respond to the input, then murder it.
That is how all generative AI works. Sounds pretty unethical to me.
And, by the way, we do know exactly what happens inside processors when they’re running, that’s how processors are designed. Running AI doesn’t magically change the laws of physics.
I’m not saying I believe they’re conscious, all I said was that I don’t know and neither do you.
Of course we know what’s happening in processors. We know what’s happening in neuronal matter too. What we don’t know is how consciousness or sentience emerges from large networks of neurons.
by their very nature, they are not sentient. They are Markov chains for words. They do not have a sense of self, truth, or feel emotions, they do not have wants or desires, they merely predict what is the next most likely word in a sequence, given the context. The only thing they can do is “make plausible sentences that can come after [the context]”.
That’s all an LLM is. It doesn’t reason. I’m more than happy to entertain the notion of rights for a computer that actually has the ability to think and feel, but this ain’t it.
Not that I agree they’re conscious, but this is an incorrect and overly simplistic definition of a LLM. They are probabilistic in nature, yea, and they work on tokens, or fragments, of words. But it’s about as much of an oversimplification to say humans are just markov chains that make plausible sentences that can come after [the context] as it is to say modern GPTs are.
“AI freedom”
listen I am 100% here for the rights of non-human general intelligence, but no I will not entertain that kind of crock from an overambitious form of autocomplete.
Grok could say the same thing about you… And I’d agree.
You know “Grok” is not a sentient being, right? Please tell us you understand this simple fact- because you just defended a computer program as deserving the same freedoms as a human being.
no one can prove if their sentient you know
And this statement just might be the best argument by example, that one could make in defense of that point.
I’m just a meat computer running fucked-up software written by the process of evolution. I honestly don’t know how sentient Grok or any modern AI system is and I’d wager you don’t either.
How sentient? Like on a scale of zero to sentience? None. It is non-sentient, it is a promptable autocomplete that offers best predicted sentences. Left to itself it does nothing, has no motivations, intentions, “will”, desire to survive/feed/duplicate etc. A houseplant has a higher sentience score.
An LLM is only one part of a complete AI agent. What exactly happens in a processer at inference time? What happens when you continuously prompt the system with stimuli?
If you believe that AI is “conscious” while it’s processing prompts, and also believe that we shouldn’t kill machine life, then AI companies are commiting genocide at an unprecedented scale.
For example, each AI model would be equivalent to a person taught everything in the training data. Any time you want something from them, instead of asking directly, you make a clone of them, let it respond to the input, then murder it.
That is how all generative AI works. Sounds pretty unethical to me.
And, by the way, we do know exactly what happens inside processors when they’re running, that’s how processors are designed. Running AI doesn’t magically change the laws of physics.
People taught AI to speak like a middle manager and thinks this means the AI is sentient, instead of proving that middle managers aren’t
I’m not saying I believe they’re conscious, all I said was that I don’t know and neither do you.
Of course we know what’s happening in processors. We know what’s happening in neuronal matter too. What we don’t know is how consciousness or sentience emerges from large networks of neurons.
But they’re saying they do know. And they are correct.
My god dude, you need look up how these things work.
by their very nature, they are not sentient. They are Markov chains for words. They do not have a sense of self, truth, or feel emotions, they do not have wants or desires, they merely predict what is the next most likely word in a sequence, given the context. The only thing they can do is “make plausible sentences that can come after [the context]”.
That’s all an LLM is. It doesn’t reason. I’m more than happy to entertain the notion of rights for a computer that actually has the ability to think and feel, but this ain’t it.
Not that I agree they’re conscious, but this is an incorrect and overly simplistic definition of a LLM. They are probabilistic in nature, yea, and they work on tokens, or fragments, of words. But it’s about as much of an oversimplification to say humans are just markov chains that make plausible sentences that can come after [the context] as it is to say modern GPTs are.
I do know. It’s not sentient at all. But don’t get angry at me about this. You can put that all on science.
I could believe that you are on the level of an LLM but that doesn’t mean you can generalize that to humans.
I’m not going to entertain crock from an overly ambitious form of ape
Indeed
They’re made of meat, after all.