Once you get that out of the way, sure, I guess it could be "alive" per the same loose definition that any electrical system can exist in an actuated state. It's software, though. I don't think it's profound or overly confident to say that we very clearly know these systems are inanimate and non-living.
>An LLM is math
Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality.
>Those things aren't alive
We don't have a universal definition of alive, or at least I'm not aware of one that isn't purely philosophical or artistic. We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence.
>both the software and hardware used to facilitate it is artificial
Define artificial? We're made of exactly the same stuff. Complex chemical elements that were created from more basic ones in collapsing stars, arranged in a particular configuration with electricity flowing through it all and providing some kind of coordination. We're definitely a bit more "squishy", I'll give you that.
> Isn't everything math? Math is what we use to describe and model the nature of our reality.
Most things are measurable, yea. LLMs in particular rely on math to understand language. Outside of a probabilistic context, LLMs do not understand words or sentences. That's... not really how you or I think. It's not how we understand animals or even plants to behave. Probibalism in nature gets you killed; deviation and unique fitness is what keeps the Darwinian wheel rolling.
> We therefore can't actually determine what is and isn't alive with much confidence.
Our speculation does a good enough job, I'd say. Sand and rocks aren't alive. Carbon isn't alive unless it is dictated by biological autonomy. Silicon chips aren't "alive" outside the sense that copper wires and your wall outlet has a lived experience. Software has a "lifecycle", but that's more used to describe human patterns of development instead of software behavior.
When you roll all this up into one scenario, I see a pretty airtight argument that AI is not animate. If someone does prove that AI is a living organism, the implications would honestly be more dire outside of AI. It would overturn all modern understanding of software, which is why I figure it's not likely to be the case.
I'm also not even sure why you're talking about "alive" or "inanimate". From context it's clear we're talking about "internal life", meaning experience, feelings, thoughts, etc., not some ability to procreate, or even necessarily some continuity of existence.
So do you have any evidence of that existing, then? Because so far, it sounds like speculation.
LLMs do not feel or think or experience anything, in the same way that particle physics is not inherently sentient. LLM architectures are not designed to resemble life, or even understand human language for the most part. It's understandable that someone would look at written text and say "it's a sign of life!", but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you.
Next, you'll play the "but how are us humans alive?" card. Humans not only qualify as animate life, but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools. We are an imperfect computer, loaded with irreconcilable differences and improper conduct. We feel biological needs and immediate responses to stimuli. Our preconception of 'love' and 'hate' is not built on the words they're associated with, but the emotions they make us feel. Our lived experience is not limited to a preserved context, but rather our whole lives stretching across years of existence. Our thoughts are not dictated by what we write and say, and the way we present ourselves is not limited by the way we are finetuned.
Human life is self-evident and precious. AI life is seemingly non-existent, and based on dubious non-technical claims.
Panpsychists would like a word.
> but Markov Chains and LISP bots were no closer to achieving "internal life" or what have you.
I'm simply making clear that this is a statement of belief as opposed to a statement of fact. You believe that true life or true sentience has certain qualities that you believe LLMs are lacking, therefore you conclude that LLMs are not alive and not sentient. I'm simply saying that we don't know enough about sentience to turn such statements of belief into statements of fact (and I don't know what "life" is in such a context, so I won't touch that).
> but our brains are not artificial purpose-built tools
Again, artificiality has nothing to do with whether something is alive, intelligent or sentient. Furthermore evolution has indeed shaped our brain into a purpose-built tool optimized to procreate.
We do! We can look at rocks and very clearly define them as non-sentient. If you disagree with that, you are not deferring to the overwhelming wealth of evidence that can prove rocks are not similar to us. Animists and panpsychics be damned, you only need thermodynamics to prove that we are not the same.
It's fine if you want to argue the uncertainty angle. I vehemently disagree with it though, and firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software, and software is not alive. Adding noise and 4.21gb of trained weights does not move the needle on that, for me.
"Similarity to us" is not a comprehensive metric for sentience, that's the point.
> firmly believe that we can extend simple logic to conclude that LLMs are software
Yes, LLMs are software, so what? Whatever sentience is, it's an integral part of our information processing, and software does information processing. There is literally no reason to conclude that software cannot do the type of information processing that our brain does for sentience.
Even if we agree that panpsychism is incorrect, I still do not agree that we know enough about sentience to claim that software cannot be sentient. I do not claim that LLMs are sentient, but they certainly could be, and the fact that they seem very intelligent, more intelligent than most humans in some ways, is a big red flag.
Unless you believe in some form of dualism, this reproduction necessarily includes sentience. Therefore, software can be sentient.
Then there's the concept of panpsychism.
Its readily apparent after a point that the previous poster is correct, and that these are simply tools.
They are impressive tools yes. But life they are not. At best, they are mimics.
I have longer comments in my history, you can read those if you must.
Besides, why wouldnt someone build things? This is HN.
A mimicry of fire is not fire because fire is a reaction between matter. A mimicry of intelligence may well be intelligence, because intelligence is just information processing.
We're not talking here about "life", but intelligence and "internal life", aka feelings, thoughts, etc.
Edit: as for the argument that "LLMs are simply tools", it has been quite easy for our ancestors to also dehumanize other people and treat them as tools. That was a core justification of slavery. This is simply not a convincing argument that LLMs lack an internal life. People fool themselves all of the time.
I am saying that LLMs DONT process information, not the way people are implying.
The best I can suggest is to please try building with an LLM. Its very hard to explain the nuance, and I am not the only one struggling with it.
[1] https://pub.towardsai.net/llms-and-memory-is-definitely-all-...
This is a much harder hypothetical, though. Assuming you get everything right, you'd have a pretty powerful simulation at-hand. I think what you're describing is the difference between an artificial lung and a real-life cloned sheep embryo, though. An iron lung is only alive in the sense that it simulates a complex biological process with technology. It's damn impressive and very capable, but living respiration looks and behaves differently. Just simulating the desired input and output won't give you de-facto biology.
A simulation tries to do what the original does though. For instance a GameBoy emulator actually runs code in the way the original device did, right?
Perhaps the test here is a bit like the Turing test. Could you tell whether the artificial device was being used, or the actual thing, apart from examining the device, of course:
- An artificial lung doesn't make people breathe in quite the same way I suspect.
- An artificial brain would give answers a bit like what ChatGPT can already do.