Researchers Trained an AI on Flawed Code and It Became a Psychopath
-
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
Show me where I said that.
That’s not a mature argument
Learn what an argument is because I haven't made one.
-
So I'd go with no at the moment because I can easily get an LLM to contradict itself repeatedly in increcibly obvious ways.
I had a long ass post but I think it comes down to that we don't know what conciousness or self awareness even are and just kind of collectively agree upon it when we think we see it, sort of like how morality is pretty much a mutable group consensus.
The only way I think we could be truly sure would be to stick it in a simulated environment and see how it reacts over a few thousand simulated years to figure out wether its one of the following:
- Chinese room: The potential AI in question just keeps dying because despite seeming intelligent when prompted with training data it has no ability to function when its not spoon-fed the required information in advance. (I think current LLMs are here given my initial statement in this post).
- Animal: It survives but never really advances beyond figuring out the behaviours required for survival, its certainly concious at this point but works more like a dog where it can follow commands and carry out tasks but has no true understanding of the meaning behind them.
- Person: It starts seeking out information in ways not immediately neccesary for its survival and basically does what we did with the whole tool thing and speculative reasoning skills, if it invents an equivelent to writing then we can be pretty damn certain its human level and not more like corvids (tools) or ants (agriculture)
Now personally I think that test is likely impractical so we're probably going to default to its concious when it can convince the majority of people that its concious for a sustained period.... So I guess it has free will when it can start or at least spark a large grass roots civil rights movement?
-
if you can't explain your position, I'm not going to go looking for support for you.
-
it's not my position, but the book author's. i doubt i could do a good job explaining it, as i haven't gotten very far in to it.
sometimes people are curious, and just want to know that the information exists. that is me. I'm reading the book as a challenge for myself, because i disagree with the premise.
other times people i guess think that you could cover a complex topic like this in bite-sized spoon-fed internet comments and memes. i feel pity for those guys.
-
Free will, fate, and randomness all play a role in our universe, each parameter affecting each other. There is no such thing as absolute free will, nor does absolute determinism guide our universe, nor does absolute randomness. I think however, that our closest understanding to the inherent nature of our universe is a form of randomness.
-
garbage in - garbage out
-
Fuck, here too...
-
Free will doesn’t exist
Which precise notion of free will do you mean by the phrase? There are multiple.
-
No, it does not make any technical sense whatsoever why an LLM would make that connection.
-
That's merely one interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are others that don't conclude this (though they come with their own caveats, which haven't been disproven but they seem unpalatable to most physicists).
Still, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does claim that even if the universe is predictable, it's essentially impossible to gather the information to actually predict it.
-
It's OK not to be mature, you don't have to be mad. Your argument is that you don't have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
-
Who has done that?
-
other times people i guess think that you could cover a complex topic like this in bite-sized spoon-fed internet comments and memes. i feel pity for those guys.
I have a philosophy degree. I don't need you to cover the topic. I asked you to support your position.
-
You would have to look up the meaning of anthropomorphism if it's not clear.
-
I know what it means, I just don't understand what you are referring to? Who has anthropomorphised it?
-
Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
No.
My point is that free will has not been "solved" but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.
This isn't an argument, it is a fact.
-
Well, I googled exactly that and as I knew, it doesn't say what you propose. Can you explain what the fuck you mean? Free will has no evidence nor does no free will. It's a philosophical question and science can only confirm that we make choices. Your hostile arguments are so hard to interpret. What do you mean. No, there is not more evidence that we do. What evidence? Why is it so easy to find and basic to you that you become angry, yet it turns out you made it up? Can you elaborate?
