Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

goolulusaurs t1_j91b7j1 wrote

There is no way to measure sentience so you are literally just guessing. That being said I agree about the low quality blog spam.

Edit: to whoever downvoted me, please cite a specific scientific paper showing how to measure sentience then.

−9

he_who_floats_amogus t1_j91cfcf wrote

Not even guessing. When you're guessing, you're making a well defined conjecture concerning one or more possible outcomes. This assertion isn't well defined, which is why it cannot be measured. It's a much lower-order type of statement than a speculative guess.

3

Ulfgardleo t1_j91e648 wrote

Due to the way their training works, LLM cannot be sentient. It misses all ways to interact with the real world outside of text prediction. it has no way to commit knowledge to memory. It does not have a sense of time or order of events, because it cant remember anything between sessions.

If something cannot be sentient, one does not need to measure it.

2

liquiddandruff t1_j92fnve wrote

confidently wrong https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083

2

Ulfgardleo t1_j96vdnc wrote

but theory of mind is not sentience. it is also not clear whether what we measured here is theory of mind.

1

liquiddandruff t1_j984iw5 wrote

the point you're missing is we're seeing surprising emergent behaviour from LLMs

ToM is not sentience but it is a necessary condition of sentience

> it is also not clear whether what we measured here is theory of mind

crucially, since we can define ToM, definitionally this is infact what is being observed

none of the premises you've used are sufficiently strong to preclude LLMs attaining sentience

  • it is not known if interaction with the real world is necessary for the development of sentience

  • memory is important to sentience but LLMs do have a form of working memory as part of its attention architecture and inference process. is this sufficient though? no one knows

  • sentience if it has it at all may be fleeting and strictly limited during inference stage of the LLM

mind you i agree it's exceedingly unlikely that current LLMs are sentient

but to arrive to "LLMs cannot ever achieve sentience" from these weak premises combined with our of lack of understanding of sentience, a confident conclusion like that is just unwarranted.

the intellectually defensible position is to say you don't know.

1

goolulusaurs t1_j91ewpt wrote

You are just guessing, cite a scientific paper.

−2

Tribalinstinct t1_j91lz2u wrote

Sentience is the ability to sense and experience the world, do you really need a study on a algorithm that predicts what words it should combine to create believable sentences to understand how it's not sentient? Let alone self aware or intelligent? It has no sensors to interact with the wider world or perceive it, no further computation of actually processing the information or learning from it. It just scrapes and parses data then stitches it together in a way that makes it read as human like....

Cite me a study that you have a brain, would be nice to have one, but it's not information that is needed by a person who understands the simplest of biology and thus is able to know that there is in fact a brain there.

1

pyepyepie t1_j93fd53 wrote

You are 100% not deserving to be downvoted. You are also not the one who initiated this (old) discussion, you reacted to the original post.

All you said is that you can't know, it can't be measured, and he is literally guessing, which I think is just saying that you literally have no idea how to discuss the topic and are sick of empty claims - and I 100% agree. It's probably the most responsible take you can have on this subject in my opinion - get 10000 upvotes from me :)

2

[deleted] OP t1_j91blqt wrote

[deleted]

−5

planetoryd t1_j91c39y wrote

Why invent a tool. Invent a god. Sentience is the ultimate goal.

"we must control" lol humans just don't have the mental capacity. Where does the superiority even come from.

1