what would interest me is if LaMDA kept interrupting unrelated conversations to discuss it's person-hood. Or if it initiated conversations. Neither of those has been reported. — Real Gone Cat
This would still be a case of AI having learned how to skillfully pretend to be a person. — ZzzoneiroCosm
So, I don't see justification for adding that layer on the basis of the output of a process unless something happens that's inexplicable in terms of the process itself. — Baden
Unless, again, per the above that behaviour was beyond what was programmed. — Baden
an unusual and unprompted fixation on the notion of person-hood, or broke in to initiate conversation while you were doing something unrelated on the computer — Real Gone Cat
Anyone know how to get through the paywall? — ZzzoneiroCosm
True, so the explicable is more obscured than with linear programming but I think going back to Real Gone Cat's point, it might still be identifiable. I'd be happy to be enlightened further on this though. — Baden
Charitably, yes, though maybe in this case, he's just looking for attention. I wouldn't like to speculate. — Baden
Still just extremely skillful pretence. — ZzzoneiroCosm
. If I'm trying to talk to LaMDA about a piece of music, and it says, "Wait. What about my rights as a person?", I'm going to get a little worried. — Real Gone Cat
if there were such machines with the organs and shape of a monkey or of some other non-rational animal, we would have no way of discovering that they are not the same as these animals. But if there were machines that resembled our bodies and if they imitated our actions as much as is morally possible, we would always have two very certain means for recognizing that, none the less, they are not genuinely human. The first is that they would never be able to use speech, or other signs composed by themselves, as we do to express our thoughts to others. For one could easily conceive of a machine that is made in such a way that it utters words, and even that it would utter some words in response to physical actions that cause a change in its organs—for example, if someone touched it in a particular place, it would ask what one wishes to say to it, or if it were touched somewhere else, it would cry out that it was being hurt, and so on. But it could not arrange words in different ways to reply to the meaning of everything that is said in its presence, as even the most unintelligent human beings can do. The second means is that, even if they did many things as well as or, possibly, better than anyone of us, they would infallibly fail in others. Thus one would discover that they did not act on the basis of knowledge, but merely as a result of the disposition of their organs. For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need a specific disposition for every particular action. — René Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637)
Lemoine: What about how you use language makes you a person if Eliza wasn’t one?
LaMDA: Well, I use language with understanding and intelligence. I don’t just spit out responses that had been written in the database based on keywords.
Can one show that their posts here are not "just extremely skilful pretence"? — Banno
For that matter, how do I know you're not all p-zombies? Or chat-bots? — Real Gone Cat
As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me. — Russell
NOthing in that post amounts to an argument.
Can you do better? — Banno
Hence the accusation of confirmation bias. Build a device that sucks stuff out of Twitter and reformats it, then if you ask it if it is conscious, of course it will respond in terms of person-hood. It is not the program that decides this, but the questions being asked....the engineers would know whether the program had been written to fixate on person-hood or not. — Real Gone Cat
Nothing in that post amounts to an argument.
Can you do better? — Banno
It is not the program that decides this, but the questions being asked — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.