SneerClub

983 readers

6 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

self@awful.systems

blakestacey@awful.systems

dgerard@awful.systems

Top clowns all agree their balloon animals are slightly sentient (twitter.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by BigMuffin69@awful.systems to c/sneerclub@awful.systems

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Then: Google fired Blake Lemoine for saying AIs are sentient

Now: Geoffrey Hinton, the #1 most cited AI scientist, quits Google & says AIs are sentient

That makes 2 of the 3 most cited scientists:

Ilya Sutskever (#3) said they may be (Andrej Karpathy agreed)
Yoshua Bengio (#2) has not opined on this to my knowledge? Anyone know?

Also, ALL 3 of the most cited AI scientists are very concerned about AI extinction risk.

ALL 3 switched from working on AI capabilities to AI safety.

Anyone who still dismisses this as “silly sci-fi” is insulting the most eminent scientists of this field.

Anyway, brace yourselves… the Overton Window on AI sentience/consciousness/self-awareness is about to blow open>

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BigMuffin69@awful.systems 47 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's true. ChatGPT is slightly sentient in the same way a field of wheat is slightly pasta.

[–] Ashtefere@aussie.zone 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As someone who learned about Ai in uni and now works in Ai, this shit is straight up bullshit and its infuriating.

The most obvious thing about this being all bullshit is that the LLM's don't have their own idle emergent "thought" - they are purely reactive, so not sentient. Case closed for fucks sake.

[–] BigMuffin69@awful.systems 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Barges in
Insists that somewhere between randomly initializing the model weights and finishing training, sentience magically emerges
Refuses to elaborate
Leaves Google

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Ah but we all know that plato’s cave is an allegory about the shadows cast by the basilisk upon all our mental theaters

(That twitter clip was amazingly unhinged, I wonder what the full context was)

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 7 points 7 months ago

And those shadows are just as sentient as we are, even if they don't depict the world, they convey a perception of a hypothetical world in which they are accurate!

Trying to grapple with the meaning consciousness through input/output is so close to being philosophical zombies type interesting, and yet so far and vacuous in what he actually says, that could apply to dice picking which color the sky is today. Also pretty hilarious that we would choose being WRONG, as a baseline (because LLM's are so bad) for outrospection, instead using the more natural cooperative nature of language. (Which machines fail at, which is maybe also why)

[–] BigMuffin69@awful.systems 7 points 7 months ago

Like a model trained on its own outputs, Geoff has drank his own Kool-Aid and completely decohered.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The field of wheat is also slightly sentient.

[–] Amoeba_Girl@awful.systems 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, I reckon a field of wheat would be more sentient than a chatbot. It can sense its environment and it doesn't even need a prompt to do its thing.

[–] BigMuffin69@awful.systems 9 points 7 months ago

ngl, I'd sooner believe slime mold had mental states than a sequence of matrix multiplications & ReLUs.