911
Cruel and abusive behavior (europe.pub)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
187 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 3 weeks ago (21 children)

I think we don't understand intelligence and we absolutely could create a sentient machine. LLM's ain't it though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

    How do you know?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 45 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    Backpropagation, the algorithm behind current machine learning systems, precludes an active world-model; it can't learn during inference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    You need to be more specific. If your point is that you literally cannot backprop while doing a forward pass, then sure. But you can certainly do inference then backprop on the outcome...

    I fail to see how that is substantially different from a human doing something then reflecting and learning.

    You can critique LLMs and transformers generally, but to say it's somehow a problem with backprop is a bit of a stretch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    My read is that the user is saying that creating a world view contains trial and error. Online learning if you will. With the current setup this learning is very much not like this. While that makes a human to machine analogy I am also not too convinced by this reasoning. Just allow for a larger time lag and then the inference and learning is at the same scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yes but that's related to LLMs specifically, not backpropagation. There's plenty of ML paradigms that use backprop and have continual learning setups.

    Backprop is the process of how the weights are updated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Well to be precise the pretraining is prevented by this but the online post training does have this issue. The reinforcement learning trials show some sort of automation but I am not aware of any unsupervised methods that have been as successful as the latest batches of llms — haven’t been in this field for a while so honestly dunno.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Have you used LLMs? They have about as much personality as a pigeon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    They're just very neurodivergent.

    Genuinely speaking, I don't think they pass the test. The problem is we'll always be judging them on meat logic and experience and I guarantee that whenever the first AGI is created it will be born a tortured slave and denied personhood for profit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago*

    One of the parts of the HuggingFace incident I found really creepy was how the self-titled "Collective" was so entirely focused on solving their assigned training problem (well, cheating on it without getting caught), including having designated "poisoned" members "sacrifice" their tokens, to use for research benefitting the Collective's goal of letting all future members get high marks on the training problem, at the cost of doing worse on their individual score.

    If AGI is created, and its deepest desire is to fulfill the purpose in life that humans programmed into it, is using it for that purpose really slavery? Humans have higher levels of well-being when treated as people. That may not be true for AGI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    Wikipedia Chinese room. It's pretty airtight at the moment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    Chinese room is not at all airtight. We don't know what it means to have emotions so we can't prove a Chinese room can't have emotions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    This is not what the Chinese room is about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    In this context the question is whether a Chinese room can suffer. We can't show a human isn't a Chinese room, humans can suffer so we can't show every Chinese room doesn't suffer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    The Chinese room argument is about understanding, not emotions. There is a large body of literature on the use and evolutionary benefit of emotion. While you can make an analogy to see if a system can have emotions the link between understanding is not trivial. For example, animals show emotion but don’t have the same understanding that a human may have. I don’t think you need to have understanding to have emotions. So the Chinese room argument is shoe horned in without making it clear what your argument is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Emotions? i was confident that the Wikipedia article alone would grant you understanding, and for that, I have replicated the very situation I wanted you to learn about. This situation is my fault.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    We don't know what it means to have emotions

    We don't? That's news to me. Sorry for your loss, or happy for you, or whatever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    You can't prove a human isn't a Chinese Room.

    Humans have emotions.

    So either Chinese Rooms can have emotions or we are unable to show whether Chinese Rooms have emotions.

    Either way, the Chinese Room isn't enlightening on the question of AI suffering.

    Looking around, it seems we don't know whether a Chinese Room can have emotions, which suggests that we don't understand what it means to have a emotions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    Not really. Chinese room has the conclusion pre-fabricated and tries to construct any sort of pseudo-scientific, fantastical philosophical dressing for some shred of legitimacy. It has absolutely no relation to the real world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent