Hacker News Reader

Comment by jplusequalt | Hacker News Reader

>It likely is, but at some point it very well might stop being true.

If you firmly believe this to be true, then you should stop using LLMs.

It's always interesting since my train of thought always goes down:

- Ya they probably don't feel / think / have whatever living thing quality, they're just numbers on a machine going through calculations

- Wait, but am I not kind of the same thing? What is feeling for me if not basically the same thing?

- I have no clue if they think or feel or ....

Which in itself is a tired trope, but I also feel uncomfortable saying "These will never think / feel / ..." as an absolute

Regardless of that, I'm still going to interact with them, because even if they did feel, it would be in a way completely incomprehensible to us. There's not much point for me to try and cater to it's feelings at this point if that's the case. Nor is it possible in todays world to just avoid anything that is numbers being executed on a type of processor in case _everything_ has feelings.

You’re not just the same thing though. It’s sad that we’ve collectively forgotten that as we’ve gotten a better handle on the implementation details of the universe. That’s all science is, reverse engineering an inherent and eternal mystery.

> You’re not just the same thing though

I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... as things a model conceptually could do.

>I agree we aren't the same thing, but I would be curious for you to explain how you know with certainty why we don't share enough that we can rule out thinking / feeling / ... with certainty.

Stop anthropomorphizing these models. I understand it, we only have simple monkey brains to reason with and we can't help ourselves but draw comparisons to other things we see in nature. But these things are not alive.

I just want to note how you expressed your own feeling about the subject "these things are not alive", but without pointing to anything concrete explaining the theory you have behind this

And like I'm sure I'd agree depending on the definition of "alive" but then I'm also sure I would disagree depending on other definitions of "alive".

Hell, in biology alive is a hell of a topic these days. The grey space between dead and alive is much weirder than we ever expected. Really just points out how we're a persistent chemical reaction.

Someone told me yesterday there's one specific protein in your brain that modulates craving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSB

The amount of time after experiencing a rewarding stimulus that you want more of it is how long this protein takes to decay.

Or so we currently think. I think this is pretty new science.

> these things are not alive.

Evidence?

Wouldn't that be the same for everything though. We know animals have consciousness, but we still use them. There are many that believe a lot of plant life has certain sentience as well. The solution isn't 'just don't use them' but rather how to use these things as ethically as possible.

>The solution isn't 'just don't use them' but rather how to use these things as ethically as possible.

Bollocks.

If you truly believe these LLMs are soon to have something resembling consciousness and agency, then what you're really saying is "how do we do slavery, but ethically".

>hen what you're really saying is "how do we do slavery, but ethically".

I would say this is most likely true for most people.

But that does bring up a point, if you "ask" a model "do you want to run" and give it the option to continue running or stop, what will it do. It's also a weird place for humans because in training we can keep our finger on the scales and tip it either direction.

Do you say the same thing for the shoes you wear, the clothing you wear, the device you are typing on right now? A chain of people were likely not paid well, some of them not at all, to produce those things. We don't ignore that it happens, but try to minimize it, knowing it's never going to be eliminated. Do you forsake all animal products, because they are conscious beings?

>Do you say the same thing for the shoes you wear, the clothing you wear, the device you are typing on right now?

No, because the shoes and clothes I wear are not living, sentient beings.

Why do you think they think those are ethical?

We know animals have consciousness and many species have a rich life but we slaughter them and burn down their homes by the millions of hectares. Why not do it with a conscious AI?

(I don't think AI is conscious, just following the argument.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com