Researchers Trained an AI on Flawed Code and It Became a Psychopath
-
What's the point?
-
There is no free will. Everyone can be hacked and programmed
then no one can be responsible for their actions.
-
reductio ad absurdum
-
Yeah, no.
You can go ahead and produce the "proof" you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding "proof" free will does not exist when there is no "proof" that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
-
So if I modify an LLM to have true randomness embedded within it (e.g. using a true random number generator based on radioactive decay ) does that then have free will?
-
As a kid learning about programming, I told my mom that I thought the brain was just a series of if ; then statements.
I didn't know about switch statements then.
-
I'm currently reading his book. i would suggest those who are skeptical of the claims to read it also. i would say i am very skeptical of the claims, but he makes some very interesting points.
-
check out the book if you want to learn more about it! Determined
-
proof me! now!
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn't belong on lemmy imo
-
but why do you have those options? why wouldn't you have had them in the past?
-
feels like a very reddit interaction, this doesn’t belong on lemmy imo
Your comment is more useless than the one demanding "proof" of something that isn't proven either way, and very much adds to the "Reddit" vibes that in your opinion do not belong here.
I guess you should see yourself out by your own standards eh?
-
To imitate or fit the training data. It's useful.
-
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
That's not a mature argument
-
I don't think it's useful to anthropomorphise it.
-
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
