Only the best and brightest are working for Anthropic.
-
@petealexharris @celesteh @adardis The IRL Darth Vader wannabe got to have his cool soundtrack...
@Mabande @petealexharris @adardis sadly no
-
@Mabande Whenever I read this, I have to seriously reconsider if Mao's idea of sending the youth to the country to learn the life of the peasants was so wrong…
@Illuminatus The idea? Kinda good; The implementation? Not that good
-
@fgbjr @joshg @Mabande @adardis
I got my Ph. D. in chemistry after graduating near the top of my undergraduate class at a tough school.
Linus Pauling knew more about chemistry on a bad day than I ever learned.
He knew more about chemistry than many if not most of the professors I knew.
He was still very much wrong about vitamin C and its role in human health.
There are lots and lots of very smart people out there who get specific things demonstrably wrong despite their very apparent talents.
-
@Mabande I'm struck by the extent to which the responses focus on the person, rather than her arguments/ideas.
1. I see intelligence & consciousness (appropriately defined...) as something that humans have.
2. I see us as large, complex machines, subject to the laws of physics.
3. thus, I see intelligence & consciousness as emergent properties of ion channel mechanics, voltage differences...
4. I have not heard a strong argument as to why these properties can only emerge from C-based, not Si- -
@Mabande I'm struck by the extent to which the responses focus on the person, rather than her arguments/ideas.
1. I see intelligence & consciousness (appropriately defined...) as something that humans have.
2. I see us as large, complex machines, subject to the laws of physics.
3. thus, I see intelligence & consciousness as emergent properties of ion channel mechanics, voltage differences...
4. I have not heard a strong argument as to why these properties can only emerge from C-based, not Si-5. We've not seen Si-based entities perform like this before: passing Turing tests... That qualifies them, for me, as a new kind of entity.
They're different. The frontier is jagged/spiky/whatever.
For me, that's an invitation to explore, not attack.
-
@adardis @Mabande @petealexharris
that doesn't make it OK for philosophers to become propagandists.
-
5. We've not seen Si-based entities perform like this before: passing Turing tests... That qualifies them, for me, as a new kind of entity.
They're different. The frontier is jagged/spiky/whatever.
For me, that's an invitation to explore, not attack.
@rowat_c I haven't seen a strong position against the possibility of Si-based intelligent lifeforms in the scientific community (one of the baseline assumptions in the exobiology field is AFAIK that Si-based life is probable), what's dismissed is that these LLM:s are in any meaningful way conscious or even showing signs of intelligence.
The Turing Test doesn't measure intelligence, just the ability to mimic human output, and have been passed by chatbots as far back as at least ELIZA, 60 yrs ago. -
@rowat_c I haven't seen a strong position against the possibility of Si-based intelligent lifeforms in the scientific community (one of the baseline assumptions in the exobiology field is AFAIK that Si-based life is probable), what's dismissed is that these LLM:s are in any meaningful way conscious or even showing signs of intelligence.
The Turing Test doesn't measure intelligence, just the ability to mimic human output, and have been passed by chatbots as far back as at least ELIZA, 60 yrs ago.Thanks @Mabande !
My preferred approach to both terms is against a definition. Otherwise it seems to me we lose the possibility of making falsifiable statements, leaving us to sling "yes it is!" and "no it isn't!" back and forth.
When an old definition is applied to a new domain, it often needs to be adjusted. Thus, an LLM maxing out an IQ test doesn't lead us to conclude it has a 200+ IQ: it's memorised the training data.
1/n
-
Thanks @Mabande !
My preferred approach to both terms is against a definition. Otherwise it seems to me we lose the possibility of making falsifiable statements, leaving us to sling "yes it is!" and "no it isn't!" back and forth.
When an old definition is applied to a new domain, it often needs to be adjusted. Thus, an LLM maxing out an IQ test doesn't lead us to conclude it has a 200+ IQ: it's memorised the training data.
1/n
@Mabande However, if we say that a key ingredient to C-based mathematicians solving problems is their intelligence (rather than their pencil or paper supply, or Hagoromo chalk, coffee or blood sugar), then it feels like we're using sleight of hand if we don't attribute success in the same way for Si-based mathematical problem solvers.
2/n
-
@Mabande However, if we say that a key ingredient to C-based mathematicians solving problems is their intelligence (rather than their pencil or paper supply, or Hagoromo chalk, coffee or blood sugar), then it feels like we're using sleight of hand if we don't attribute success in the same way for Si-based mathematical problem solvers.
2/n
@Mabande thus, Anthropic's J-space paper seems sound: neuroscientists have a working/operational definition of (a form of?) consciousness that yields testable predictions. (Else, not science?) They find that Claude exhibits some of those predicted properties.
They don't take a stance on (the hard problem of) consciousness, merely whether Claude exhibits behaviour predicted by one definition of consciousness.
To me, it seems that, to disagree, we need to show a flaw in their derivations.
3/3
-
@Mabande thus, Anthropic's J-space paper seems sound: neuroscientists have a working/operational definition of (a form of?) consciousness that yields testable predictions. (Else, not science?) They find that Claude exhibits some of those predicted properties.
They don't take a stance on (the hard problem of) consciousness, merely whether Claude exhibits behaviour predicted by one definition of consciousness.
To me, it seems that, to disagree, we need to show a flaw in their derivations.
3/3
@rowat_c Sorry, but it's useless to try to have a conversation if one of us redefines or throws out well-established definitions on the fly.
It simply makes it so we can't agree on anything, even the basics of what the conversation's about. -
@rowat_c Sorry, but it's useless to try to have a conversation if one of us redefines or throws out well-established definitions on the fly.
It simply makes it so we can't agree on anything, even the basics of what the conversation's about.@Mabande I think we agree: if we want to make non-tautological statements about C- or Si-based intelligence or consciousness, we need to operationally define those terms: "X has property Y if it exhibits behaviour Z".
-
@Mabande I think we agree: if we want to make non-tautological statements about C- or Si-based intelligence or consciousness, we need to operationally define those terms: "X has property Y if it exhibits behaviour Z".
@rowat_c Problem is when there's a vast discrepancy re. what "exhibiting behaviour" means.
Successful mimicry of a property (eg the baseline for passing the Turing test) is not the same as having the property. -
@rowat_c Problem is when there's a vast discrepancy re. what "exhibiting behaviour" means.
Successful mimicry of a property (eg the baseline for passing the Turing test) is not the same as having the property.@Mabande sure. All I'm saying is that, if someone wants to declare "X has/doesn't have property Y", then they need to have a definition of Y that has testable implications that they're willing to stand behind, rather than moving whenever they get a result they don't like.
Why do we think I'm intelligent, or conscious, rather than just passing all the tests through mimickry + appropriate regularisation so I can generalise beyond my training data?
-
@Mabande sure. All I'm saying is that, if someone wants to declare "X has/doesn't have property Y", then they need to have a definition of Y that has testable implications that they're willing to stand behind, rather than moving whenever they get a result they don't like.
Why do we think I'm intelligent, or conscious, rather than just passing all the tests through mimickry + appropriate regularisation so I can generalise beyond my training data?
@rowat_c Usually it's the one making the claim who needs to prove it, and extraordinary claims need some more solid proof than passing a test passed by chatbots since the sixties (or a paper by a company reliant on hype to bring profits).
So if you claim LLM:s are intelligent it's up to you to provide the evidence for it (other's works are fine), and then anyone can examine the evidence to verify/falsify the claim.
This far, there's nothing supporting claims that true AI ever been created. -
@rowat_c Usually it's the one making the claim who needs to prove it, and extraordinary claims need some more solid proof than passing a test passed by chatbots since the sixties (or a paper by a company reliant on hype to bring profits).
So if you claim LLM:s are intelligent it's up to you to provide the evidence for it (other's works are fine), and then anyone can examine the evidence to verify/falsify the claim.
This far, there's nothing supporting claims that true AI ever been created.@Mabande I don't know what "true" AI is, but worry that words like "true"/"truth" (whether or not social)/"pravda" risk being used in the same way that "democratic" does in a country's name.
On consciousness, q.v. my comments above on Anthropic J-space paper.
On intelligence, my working definition is ≈ some of the thinking I need to do can now be done by an LLM.
Do you see the statement that "LLMs are not intelligent/conscious" as a claim? If so, how do people making it pass your test?
-
@Mabande I don't know what "true" AI is, but worry that words like "true"/"truth" (whether or not social)/"pravda" risk being used in the same way that "democratic" does in a country's name.
On consciousness, q.v. my comments above on Anthropic J-space paper.
On intelligence, my working definition is ≈ some of the thinking I need to do can now be done by an LLM.
Do you see the statement that "LLMs are not intelligent/conscious" as a claim? If so, how do people making it pass your test?
@rowat_c Now this is also part of the problem of discussing things with someone who doesn't believe in definitions: there's always an aspect of bad faith arguing.
Going off on a tangent about pravda? Miss me with that nonsense.
True AI as in AI proven to be an actual manufactured intelligence, passing the relevant tests.Your working definition of intelligence means a Casio fx-180Pv's intelligent.
But okay, explain the J-space paper to me. In which way does it prove consciousness in Clause?
-
@rowat_c Now this is also part of the problem of discussing things with someone who doesn't believe in definitions: there's always an aspect of bad faith arguing.
Going off on a tangent about pravda? Miss me with that nonsense.
True AI as in AI proven to be an actual manufactured intelligence, passing the relevant tests.Your working definition of intelligence means a Casio fx-180Pv's intelligent.
But okay, explain the J-space paper to me. In which way does it prove consciousness in Clause?
@rowat_c
* "Do you see the statement that "LLMs are not intelligent/conscious" as a claim?"
- It's a refutal of the claim that LLM:s are intelligent/conscious. -
@rowat_c Now this is also part of the problem of discussing things with someone who doesn't believe in definitions: there's always an aspect of bad faith arguing.
Going off on a tangent about pravda? Miss me with that nonsense.
True AI as in AI proven to be an actual manufactured intelligence, passing the relevant tests.Your working definition of intelligence means a Casio fx-180Pv's intelligent.
But okay, explain the J-space paper to me. In which way does it prove consciousness in Clause?
@Mabande **Consciousness**. I won't explain the Anthropic paper as well as it does, so encourage you to read it: https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace
n.b. It (and I, above) do *not* say it claims that Claude is conscious.
**Intelligence**. Yes, good point: by my working definition, I would see a calculator as slightly intelligent. That seems fair: it helps me think in some particular ways.
If you're ever comfortable sharing your definition of "true" intelligence, I'd be keen to hear.
Thanks for chat!
-
@Mabande **Consciousness**. I won't explain the Anthropic paper as well as it does, so encourage you to read it: https://www.anthropic.com/research/global-workspace
n.b. It (and I, above) do *not* say it claims that Claude is conscious.
**Intelligence**. Yes, good point: by my working definition, I would see a calculator as slightly intelligent. That seems fair: it helps me think in some particular ways.
If you're ever comfortable sharing your definition of "true" intelligence, I'd be keen to hear.
Thanks for chat!
@rowat_c So, you can't say what in the Anthropic paper that "find that Claude exhibits some [consciousness] properties."
The primary reason I want you to explain it is I want to understand if you understand it and not just having being awed, the secondary is that I haven't got the time to read their PR.
So, a calculator is intelligent, thus an abacus is intelligent, as are scratches in soft clay, beans dropped in a recess etc.
Don't confuse the tool of intelligence with intelligence itself. -
G gambolputte@expressional.social shared this topic
