[causality0]

That brings up a lot of hard questions. Supposing you had that AI but didn't allow it to churn in the background when not working on a problem. Human brains don't stop. They constantly process data in both conscious and unconscious ways. The AIs we've built don't do that. The meaning of the concept of "self" for a human is something a huge percentage of their thoughts interact with directly or indirectly. Will an AI ever develop a similar concept if it never has to chew on the problem for a long period?

[danbmil99]

This is a great issue to think about. Note the kinds of interactions we do not have (yet) with GPT and similar models:

GPT (as a Bot on a Discord channel) "Hey all, I just had a revelation. I'm creating a new channel to discuss this idea." Up until now, and even with GPT so far, it never initiates anything. Come to think of it, it's like a REST API -- no state, no persistent context (other than the training, which is like the database).

What I want is a WebRTC/RTSP 2-way stream with GPTx, where either of us can initiate a connection.

Also, I want GPTx to be curious, to ask me questions about myself, or even about the world, rather than just relying on the (admittedly impressive) mass of data and connections that were painfully trained into the model.

[secondbreakfast]

Haven't thought of this. Couldn't you just give a model a way to constantly "chew" on something? Maybe an ever-ending loop of some sort of prompt stimulation?

[famouswaffles]

Indeed you can.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11iei34/buildi...

[wsgeorge]

An even more fun experiment will be to have two models running in perpetuity, constantly talking to each other, but constructed to act as though they were two sides of the same model.

[dtech]

Some propagate that's more or less how the two halves of the human brain work.

[wsgeorge]

Bingo! I'm lifting this idea out of Julian Jayne's theory of consciousness :D https://www.julianjaynes.org/about/about-jaynes-theory/overv...