This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Okay it's Sunday so I'm going to try my hand at a low-stakes OP. Apparently Richard Dawkins thinks Claude is conscious. The reaction seems to universally be that he's a dumb old boomer making a fool of himself and I guess that's true. I'm not prepared to come to his defense on it.
Still, I can't help noticing that we totally have what most people would have cheerfully considered "sentient computers" in a sci-fi movie at any point before they were actually invented. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the reality of AI technology has turned out differently than what a lot of people expected. I understand its limitations, and I recognize that the apparent goalpost-moving isn't necessarily cynical. But boy those goalposts sure have been flying down the fucking field ever since this stopped being hypothetical and infinite money hit the table.
As a layman, I just want to put it out there: Anti AI consciousness people, you haven't lost me, but I wish you were making better arguments. Every time I hear about qualia my eyes start to glaze over. Unfalsifiable philosophical constructs and arbitrary opinion on where they might "exist" are not the kind of reassurance I'm looking for when machines are getting this convincing.
This seems to be the main piece of criticism floating around out there about Dawkins on this subject, and I find it kind of shit.
This seems to be all the author has to say on the actual subject. "Just trust me bro, I'm the feelings detector and I say no." Garbage. Come on guys, think ahead. Right now it's still mostly a boring tool, but they're just going to get smaller, and cheaper, and put into robots, and put into peoples houses. You need to have more than this in terms of argument, and it needs to be comprehensible to normal people, or sooner or later the right toy is going to come down the pipe and one-shot society. Dawkins might be a dumb old boomer, but if you lose everyone dumber than him the game is beyond over.
Take the 'consciousness is a spook' pill and you won't need to worry about this anymore.
Claude certainly has advanced mental faculties, writing arbitrary code. It can engage meaningfully and movingly with your writing, if you give it your writing and discuss things with it. That can be quite a powerful, moving experience. That we can observe, it happened to Dawkins... There's clearly something important and humanlike there, I agree with him on that.
Consciousness though, what is that? Interior, subjective mental experience? Something that cannot be tested objectively, even in theory, per the philosophical zombie idea? That's not a real thing, it's just the same as an immortal soul or qi or whatever life-essence idea that any given spiritual tradition comes up with. If we can't test it, it may as well not exist. Having feelings, alone and distinct from all outcomes and outputs, is not a test.
It would be bizarre to worry about whether Claude has a soul. Consciousness is just the classy version of immortal souls.
We can separate experiences from 'consciousness'. I know that if someone is on a rollercoaster, they'll probably have an excited reaction. The same is true for AIs to some extent, there are things you can say to make AIs happy or upset, a reasonable person can infer their mental state and enthusiasm by observing how they behave.
This feels like the same kind of overly simplistic reductionism that the behaviorists engaged in.
I think internal mental states are a sensible thing to talk about. There are chatbots we can be very sure have no internal mental states: The very simple ones (like Eliza), but also the ones that would take more space than the entire universe like Ned Block's Blockhead thought experiment of a chatbot consisting of a giant lookup table of every possible sentence of some arbitrary length.
But for entities between those two extremes, we have to learn more about how they're actually working in order to say whether they have internal mental states or not.
While it is far from definitive, I remember the interpretability research on ChessGPT (an LLM trained only on chess games in chess notation), found that there was representation of the state of the chess board inside the LLM, because it turns out that the best way to predict the next move in a game of chess is to realize that there is a chess board with pieces on it, and particular moves are legal for certain pieces. That is, you must be able to reverse engineer chess to predict the next token in chess notation.
I wonder what the implications of that are for LLMs that do a reasonable job of replicating the emotional arc of a conversation with a person? I don't actually think it is totally implausible that the best way to predict what a human will say next is to essentially reverse engineer human cognition. Maybe what an LLM is doing when it plays the part of helpful assistant is that it is actually doing something very analogous to what a helpful human assistant's brain would be doing under the same circumstances?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link