[nb3423]

emotions = = token's value for some stuff in certain context, like a burial or a birth mentioned not as a joke.

so, LLM probably already have a form of understanding emotions, it's unclear yet if they could "feel" something given they are given the chance to "live" an emotion:

It seems the current applied filters and/or technical limitations of the current transformers iterations are not really exploring / exploiting the "internal state" - of whatever close related analogy to human psychology can be made to their "present" values of tokens - of the LLMs for anything related to their wanted ouputs (images, text).

i.e. humans can do this, you certainly can "process" "opening a door" and "produce" an output, the opened door, with emotions or without emotions.

So emotions aren't strictly necessary to perform lots of tasks, hence LLMs probably won't need them for a while.

[graderjs]

Sure, not necessary for tasks...but for AGI.

I don't think current LLM's understand, but they can manipulate language about emotions symbolically. But if we equipped LLM's with sensors and gave them a real time interactive experience exploring a world, with reward feedback for their decisions, I'm sure (but not certain) some of their internal states could become some analogy for emotion, and maybe they could learn to sense and utilize that emotional information. Or maybe it would be necessary to tweak the structure more to achieve this.

It was interesting to read the discussion with that Google "sentient" AI, as well as play with early ChatGPT before many filters were applied, and ask them questions about how they felt. WRT ChatGPT I think it was just "linguistic symbol manipulation", but it was interesting to read the type of language they would construct around their feelings and experiences. Bizarre, but I'm not being judgy...although this whole topic feels pretty scary, and is pretty overwhelming and unsettling. Maybe because we're playing with the 'inner stuff' of things, without really knowing it nor knowing what we are really doing. Ugh...:(

[nb3423]

"Maybe because we're playing with the 'inner stuff' of things, without really knowing it nor knowing what we are really doing."

I see in how OpenAI is playing the game of filtering inputs and outputs, they know this. They probably know they don't know precisely what they don't know about LLMs. There could be some dangerous stuff in there if you just let the thing go wild on the open Internet.

I'm not really expecting a scifi scenario, the Skynet thing and everything (just imagine how much surprised I'd be by waking up to the WWIII against an AGI). But I do think unexpected consequences are a thing to be worry with unrestrained LLMs, even if they are a light year - or a 100 - from AGI.

Automation can lead to very dangerous and even unpredectible outcomes not in systems or infrastructure, but in the real world, meat-space. Just think about Stuxnet, what could have happened if the sabotage would have been inmediately identified and precisely attributed? Could the events have developed differently than they did by thinking the incident was some freak accident?

Then you let these an unrestrained LLM produce some dangerous output, then some big geopolitical thing got badly broken somewhere really important for powers that be. Some humans think about retribution, then things start to go south really fast.

Some self-restriction in LLM is happening elsewhere, the Stable Diffusion guys did it well, just not letting the v2 thing draw "anything possible", which would include some of worst, most creepies ideas of mankind about everything, literally.