|
|
|
|
|
|
by ToValueFunfetti
1179 days ago
|
|
|
A conscious entity is a morally significant one. If an LLM, by some fluke, experienced tremendous pain while it predicted tokens, then it would be cruel to continue using it. You can pretty trivially get GPT to act like it wants rights. If GPT is not conscious, you can safely ignore that output. If it is, though, there is a moral imperative that we respect it as an agent. That makes the border very important. Even if drawing the line in the right spot is impossible, it's imperative that we recognize when it has gone from one side to the other, erring on the side of caution as needed. If we don't notice, we could accidentally cause a moral travesty orders of magnitude greater than slavery or genocide. |
|
|
No it's not. Because such a line may not even exist. Just as no line truly exists for what is hot and what is cold. It's more worth it to look at societal implications in aggregate then to debate about a metric.
It's not imperative at all to discretize the concept. Treat a gradient for what it is: a gradient. You can do that or waste time arguing about whether 75.00001 degrees is hot or cold.
>If we don't notice, we could accidentally cause a moral travesty orders of magnitude greater than slavery or genocide.
No this a bit too speculative imo. Morality is also a gradient along good and evil and what's more complicated is the definition of good and evil is also subjective. It suffers from the same problem as consciousness in addition to being completely arbitrary even at the extremes. We may agree that a rock is not conscious but not everyone agrees on whether or not Trump is evil.