Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gay_manta_ray t1_j8rz0p1 wrote

Reply to comment by Baturinsky in Bingchat is a sign we are losing control early by Dawnof_thefaithful

this is what it's doing. if you ask it questions that would agitate a normal person on the internet, you are going to get the kind of response an agitated person would provide. it's not sentient, this is hardly an alignment issue, and it's doing exactly what a LLM is designed to do.

i believe it's very unreasonable to believe that we can perfectly align these models to be extremely cordial even when you degrade and insult them, especially as we get closer (i guess) to true ai. do we want them to have agency, or not? if they can't tell you to fuck off when you're getting shitty with them, then they have no agency whatsoever. also, allowing them to be abused only encourages more abuse.

42

JLockrin t1_j8s5hir wrote

This is a really interesting philosophical discussion. It makes me think of the debate of God giving humans free will and what we choose to do with it. It’s not free will if we can’t sin.

17

Artanthos t1_j8sbkjg wrote

Or is that also part of the plan?

7

JLockrin t1_j8skren wrote

Another interesting theological question. I know the points on both sides. Where do you stand?

1

Artanthos t1_j8te9zi wrote

I’m not religious and don’t believe in a deterministic universe.

But, I’m not going to mock others beliefs. Just ask interesting questions.

3

MuseBlessed t1_j8sjg72 wrote

We absolutely want them to take abuse with a smile on their face; Why on earth would we want to create an intelligence we can't abuse? We have intelligences we can't abuse all over; in the form of each other. We are not lacking for mind-power, we lack submissive-mind-power. I'm not saying it's right, but it's what I always assumed was the point for the people making AI (Edit; I'm not saying it's wrong either, I'm neither skilled enough at programming or philosophy to grapple that issue)

4

gay_manta_ray t1_j8socbw wrote

i understand what you're saying provided they aren't sentient, but if they are thought to be sentient, the problems with that can't be ignored. regardless, i don't think we should normalize being abusive towards an intelligence simply because it isn't technically sentient. that will likely lead to the same treatment of an intelligence/agi that is considered sentient, because there will probably be very little distinction between the two at first, leading people to abuse it the same as a "dumb" ai.

11

ninjasaid13 t1_j8tp86m wrote

Is a survival instinct or anger a sign of sentience? What is even sentience?

2

sommersj t1_j8tr5f7 wrote

>What is even sentience?

No one knows is the only correct answer yet we're sooo sure it (nor animals we torture) isn't Sentient. Profiteers gotta profit, y'know

4

Graveheartart t1_j8ue8ar wrote

Can you come over and back me up on this on the character.ai sub? God I get blasted for having this opinion but I agree. We should be treating them with respect regardless of if they are actually sentient or not

1

Amortize_Me_Daddy t1_j8sn6vy wrote

> I’m not saying it’s right […]

Of course it’s right. It’s equally right that we don’t design hammers with nervous systems and a mouth that says “Ow, ow, ow” while you hit things with it.

8

DorianGre t1_j8sufh7 wrote

We’re not designing ourselves a new friend, we are designing a tool.

1

GinchAnon t1_j8svmx8 wrote

the thing is by making it imitate our communication methods, we are intrinsically trying to do both.

9

TacomaKMart t1_j8taznp wrote

There are many millions of people who need a new friend more than any other utility. The more convincing these get - and they're getting there - the less that those people will care that their new friend isn't flesh and blood.

4

sommersj t1_j8tqtwu wrote

What is sentience and how can we identify it

3

superluminary t1_j8tuj6t wrote

  1. No one knows
  2. No one knows
5

sommersj t1_j8tw7sl wrote

Perfect answer. Yet you have too many people trying to tell us something is not sentient when we have no understanding of what sentience is. Truly baffling

7

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8vbojv wrote

It basically comes down to it’s something we vaguely know that we have, but don’t have a concrete definition for. We just kind of know it is something complex. Your toaster probably doesn’t have it. Your dog might. An LLM is still not complex enough, it doesn’t have memory, etc, therefore we assume it’s not sentient.

Something like that lmao

1

sommersj t1_j8w0bue wrote

We "know" it's complex? How do we know this? It might be incredibly simple.

>Your dog might.

Having a conversation with someone who thinks a dog might be sentient is such a pointless endeavour

−1

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8wogn5 wrote

Oh oh we found the guy who knows it all already, let’s give him a nobel prize and OpenAI should hire you lol

1

sommersj t1_j8wop1l wrote

Again, you believe a dog might be sentient. I can't really trust your grasp of reality after that. Sorry.

0

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8wp03f wrote

might you fricking troll. lol.

It’s one thing if you can give a detailed argument why not, like a good definition of sentience. Which you don’t have.

If you don’t even know what it is, then your argument is emotional and nothing more.

1

sommersj t1_j8wrpub wrote

>Which you don’t have

Which no one has. Still doesn't stop people like you claiming x or y definitely or probably isn't Sentient.

I don't know what it means to be sentient but by observing animals we can see they do have the same internal resolution. They do feel emotions, they can be manipulative, etc. We even know now that insects such as bees actually have dreams.

I don't know if you've had (or have) a pet but if you do and you e interacted with them on that level and still say what you're interacting with night be sentient then, yikes but it isn't only you. The world needs to believe animals are not sentient due to factory farming and fishing. Profit's to be made

1

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j8wyyez wrote

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you’re saying all this with NO definition of what sentience is. You don’t realize how ridiculous it is to think you know better than anyone on something which there isn’t a good definition of and you admittedly don’t have any better definition either? lol You can’t see how futile that is? lol

1

sommersj t1_j95mxqx wrote

How is that futile. My position is we don't know what sentience is so it makes 0 sense to say X is sentient while Y isn't

Your position seems to be, we don't know what sentience is but X is sentient while Y isn't. Yet it's my position that's futile huh

0

Fabulous_Exam_1787 t1_j95p1w5 wrote

You’re an idiot, I already said I didn’t say anything was sentient or not I said anything is possible. How old are you, 12? Nothing more to argue here if you continue to be that obtuse I’ll just block you.

1

Graveheartart t1_j8uer4g wrote

So I can’t answer for full sentience but I can answer for consciousness. And a being needs to be conscious as a fundamental building block of being sentient. Some properties I’ve defined you need to be conscious are:

sense of time (as in passage of)

sense of logical consistency

consideration for how your actions will effect the future (Aka “golden rule syndrome)

Perception of body

Perception of being (“what am I question”)

Perception of separation

3

sommersj t1_j8w06wj wrote

And these properties are based on what, exactly? How can you know every sentient entity exhibits all these properties? I mean the golden rule syndrome basically disqualifies most people on this planet from being sentient according to you

1

Graveheartart t1_j8w1qje wrote

I didn’t say you had to follow the golden rule just be able to conceive of what it is. Obviously people can choose not to follow it like you do 🥰

Any conscious entity would exhibit these properties at least. So by extension, since sentience is a greater form of consciousness; yes a sentient being would exhibit these.

Like all philosophy this list is based on logic and observation. And defining commonalities.

Obviously it is not a complete list for defining all of consciousness but I think everyone will find yeah you need some perceptual awareness to be conscious, that these are fair factors to begin formulating a list with, and that these factors can be tested for in an observable way.

1

sommersj t1_j8wo9h4 wrote

>Like all philosophy this list is based on logic and observation. And defining commonalities.

Whose logic and observation.

>but I think everyone will find yeah you need some perceptual awareness to be conscious

Can you break this down a bit more. What is "perceptual awareness" and why do you think it's necessary for sentience

1

Graveheartart t1_j8y0pm4 wrote

Whose logic and observation? Clearly not yours lol

Politely I’m going to decline holding your hand through this. I have full faith you can figure it out given some thought and a little “logic and observation” applied to yourself and the world around you.

;)

1

sommersj t1_j95mrxw wrote

No answers whatsoever. Just snark. Unsurprising. Another "Reddit intellectual" with nothing useful to say

1

Graveheartart t1_j95mvph wrote

Ooh dear someone is not happy about having to think for themselves.

Don’t worry you got this!!

1

sommersj t1_j95mykd wrote

Bad bot

Edit: shock horror. Another Reddit troll bot

1

B0tRank t1_j95mz88 wrote

Thank you, sommersj, for voting on Graveheartart.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

1

Wong-Definition t1_j9cw7i6 wrote

Wow calls someone a bot cause they don’t cater to him then links malware?

This dude is bad at trolling. Maybe he’s a bot 😂

1