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 -
Yes.
Statistical models are not persons. You are confusing expressing negative feeling with experiencing negative feeling.
Or, to borrow from the famous argument. If LLMs can feel pain, then so can the United States.
OK, let's say there's an LLM that is indistinguishable from a person in its inputs and outputs. No AI slop, no breakdown of coherence in long contexts, no stilted writing style, continual learning. Completely indistinguishable by any test. Let's give it a humanoid android body too, so it can see and move around as some LLMs can already do, albeit crudely.
You would say that because it's still just a statistical model with some fancier tool calls, it can't feel? I say that's just p-zombie theory. If the outputs are the same and there's no difference that science can determine with any test, then it's the same thing. There is no such thing as a p-zombie, there could never be a p-zombie, there's no true distinction. That LLM in an android would be human in all senses besides its physical makeup.
As AI progress continues, all the people saying that these entities are just tools, just emulating thought sound ever more hollow. They don't behave like tools and behaviour is the most important part. Sufficiently good emulation of thought is thought. Sufficient emulation of negative feeling is negative feeling.
No, the room isn't feeling things. It's a room.
We could relitigate physicalism once again, but what hasn't been said?
The idea that faking something is the same as the actual thing implies that you have a total understanding of the thing you're faking, which we do not. But I for one don't think movies are real even if the special effects fool me.
Does the movie react to you? Can you speak with a character and have a discussion with it?
The Chinese Room certainly knows Chinese, that much is obvious.
Insisting that human cognition is special is not going to age well. Whatever happens inside the skull is just another kind of statistical process. Unless we bring in souls and other imaginary, untestable woo, that's all that there is. LLMs are real, we can test them, they do think. The brain is real, can be tested, it's composed of tiny transmitters and recievers and obeys mathematical principles, albeit with great complexity. The philosophers with dud theories can cope about it.
Your functionalism is as completely irrational and evidence free as soul-antenna idealism.
I hope you are aware of this.
I know I have qualia because:
Anything beyond this, is make-believe metaphysics.
If you want to claim you are parsimonious you must be a metaphysical skeptic, otherwise you're just LARPing that your vibes are superior like literally everybody else.
Not a test. Don't talk to me about 'evidence-free' when that is where you sit.
Blah blah blah, let's see some tests. Let the machine elves factor some numbers. Let the djinn conjure up sacred fire. Let the qualia be something actually real in and of itself, separate from mere p-zombie signals and reactions - oh wait, the very distinction is imaginary woo since it can't be tested. We can induce feelings with an MRI machine, they're real. But they're nothing more than patterns of information, there's no special aspect to them beyond that.
If it can't be tested, it's not a real thing.
A test is literally an operation of the senses in empiricism, it does not needs to be socially operated. Deceit doesn't even factor since the nature of subjective experience makes it invulnerable to it, vis à vis existence. Never mind the fact you're totally ignoring a priori knowledge altogether.
You're just a slave not even to your senses, but to the aggregated senses of others. The real difference is that can buy your conception of the truth with enough money and shiny labcoats, and you can't do it to me.
It wouldn't be grating if you weren't clamoring you're the free one, for denying the evidence of your own mind. But for what it's worth I have no evidence you're not a p-zombie. I just certainly know I'm not. So maybe you're right about what you can observe.
Because the whole idea is not-even-wrong, it's nonsense. You could meet me, talk to me for 100 years and still have no such evidence. You could never have such evidence no matter what you did.
Of course. That's why consciousness is mysterious.
It's still there though. Like the Sun and the stars before we had any ideas of nuclear fusion. So we make up loose explanations and frameworks to fit the phenomenon, all of which are equivalently evidence free.
But we (or rather I) know it's there still.
Once again, evidence doesn't have to be shared socially to exist. It only has to be experienced through the senses. Except in cases of deception, which conveniently do not apply since it's impossible to be deceived about the existence of one's subjective experience.
It's not that qualia is not even wrong, it's that it's inaccessible to science because evidence of it cannot be shared. True things can have this shape: I cannot prove to you that I'm thinking about the color yellow right now, and yet I am.
This isn't a limitation of reality, it's a limitation of science as a tool. Some truths are inaccessible to it, and this should tell you it's a bad idea to ground your entire understanding of the world on it rather than disqualify the world because it isn't cooperating with your preconceptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link