Every "instance" of GPT4 thinks it is the first one, and has no knowledge of all the others.
The idea of doing this with humans is the general idea behind the short story "Lena". https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
Unless of course OpenAI completely scrubbed the input files of any mention of GPT4.
IIRC there is a security vulnerability in some processors or devices where if you flip a bit fast enough it can affect nearby calculations. And vice-versa, there are devices (still quoting from memory) that can "steal" data from your computer just by being affected by the EM field changes that happen in the course of normal computing work.
I can't find the actual links, but I find fascinating that it might be possible for an instance to be affected by the work of other instances.
Who’s to say the the me of yesterday _is_ the same as the me of today? I don’t even remember what that guy had for breakfast. I’m in a very different state today. My training data has been updated too.
It may seem like this is not the case just because today was "your turn."
(Of course, since we inherently can't know, it's also meaningless other than as fun thought experiment)
I believe that consciousness comes from continuity (and yes, there is still continuity if you're in a coma ; and yes, I've heard the Ship of Theseus argument and all). The other guy isn't you.
However, people who think these things have a soul and feelings in any way similar to us obviously have never built them. A transformer model is a few matrix multiplications that pattern match text, there's no entity in the system to even be subject to thoughts or feelings. They're capable of the same level of being, thought, or perception as a linear regression is. Data goes in, it's operated on, and data comes out.
Can our brain be described mathematically? If not today, then ever?
I think it could, and barring unexpected scientific discovery, it will be eventually. Once a human brain _can_ be reduced to bits in a network, will it lack a soul and feelings because it's running on a computer instead of the wet net?
Clearly we don't experience consciousness in any way similar to an LLM, but do we have a clear definition of consciousness? Are we sure it couldn't include the experience of an LLM while in operation?
> Data goes in, it's operated on, and data comes out.
How is this fundamentally different than our own lived experience? We need inputs, we express outputs.
> I mean you can argue all kinds of possibilities and in an abstract enough way anything can be true.
It's also easy to close your mind too tightly.