Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlmonge | Hacker News Reader

Even worse, IMHO... Are those who argue that LLMs an become sentient--I've seen this banter in other threads here on HN, in fact. As far as I understand it, sentience is a property organic to beings that can do more than just reason. These beings can contemplate on their existence, courageously seek & genuinely value relationship and worship their creator. And yes, I'm describing HUMANS. In spite of all the science fiction that wondrously describes otherwise, machines/programs will not ever evolve to develop humanity. Am I right? I'll get off my soapbox now... just a pet peeve that I had to vent once again on the heels of said "literal anthropomorphosists"

View on HN

I don't believe LLMs have become sentient, nor can it "contemplate on its existence".

That said, I find some of your claims less compelling. I'm an atheist, so there's no "creator" for humans to be worshipped. But also, human intelligence/sentience came from non-intelligence/non-sentience, right? So something appeared where before it didn't exist (gradually, and with whatever convoluted and random accidents, but it did happen: something new where it didn't exist before). Therefore, it's not implausible that a new form of intelligence/sentience could be fast tracked again out of non-intelligence, especially if humans were directing its evolution.

By the way, not all scifi argues that machines/programs can evolve to develop humanity. Some scifi argues the contrary, and good scifi wonders "what makes us human?".

You say that "I don't believe LLMs have become sentient" nor contemplate. But what is the basis for your belief in this? I would think than an atheist would be more likely to have opposite beliefs.

I also concede that a "form" of intelligence/sentience could emerge. Presently the form is called "artificial," I'd say.

And you're right... not all scifi argues machine evolves to humanity. I meant to refer to that body of scifi that does. And the body that explores the "what make us human," indeed that's the good stuff. Alex Garland's Ex Machina comes to mind. I absolutely loved that film. The ending was chilling!

Thanks for the respectful reply. We agree on scifi!

As for atheism: it's merely the lack of belief that god exists (or in some definitions, the active belief that it doesn't exist). Nothing else, nothing more. Individual atheists may believe some other things, or not.

I believe some kind of intelligence could arise again, much like ours arose "out of nonintelligence". I just don't think this is it -- LLMs are very impressive but they are likely a dead end, and regardless, I don't think they are conscious by any meaningful definition of the word. It's mostly hype and gullible people at this point.

How do we prove humans are?

See, I think your view is just as baseless as the people calling modern LLMs sentient. If I was to take a human, and gradual replace parts of him and his brain with electronics that simulated the behavior of the removed parts, I'd struggle to call that person not sentient. After all, is a deaf person who is given hearing by a cochlear implant "less sentient"? And if we were to skip the flesh part, and jump straight to building the resulting system, how could we not acknowledge that these two beings are not equals? We have no evidence whatsoever for anything at all so unique about oursleves that they could not be simulated. Hell, even a theological argument has issues: if God was able to create us in his image, complete with sentientience and humanity, what's to say we, too, can't so illuminate our own creations?

To claim we have already achieved machine sentience is preposterous hype swallowing. To assert that it is impossible is baseless conjecture.

I respect your feedback, OkayPhysicist...

But I never claimed that a person with synthetic augmentations was any less human/sentient than those with all their natural parts. I likewise never claimed that "we have already achieved machine sentience."

And here's some food for thought... Regardless if one believes in God or not, is it really that offensive to claim that our humanity is unique in its sentience? I find it offensive when some claim that aliens built the Egyptian pyramids. (It sure provides great fodder for some wondrous science fiction, indeed.)

I will re-assert in other words, for the sake of clarity... That sentience is not an emergent property. That is the foundational definition upon which I contemplate the mystery (i.e. the reality of our being that science will never develop sufficiently to fully explain) of our existence. I for one, enjoy the endeavor of employing my sentience to explore & investigate our wondrous universe and to equally explore & relate with you and call you a friend in spite of our disagreement. Cheers!

At this point I've seen various folks declare they've "bootstrapped consciousness" etc., somehow providing a sacred spark through just the right philosophical words or a series of pseudo-mathematical inputs.

I believe it's fundamentally the same as the people convinced "[he/she/it] really loves me." In both cases they've shaped the document-generation so that it describes a fictional character they want to believe is is real. Just with an extra dash of Promethean delusions of grandeur.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com