Can we say ChatGPT or its future versions would be like an instantiation of the Boltzmann Brain concept if it has internal qualia? The "brain" comes alive with the rich structure only to disappear after the chat session is over.
Cool way of putting it. Let's run with that. A good actor can be seen as instantiating a Boltzmann Brain while on stage -- especially when improvising (as always may be needed). Maybe each of us is instantiating some superposition of Boltzmann Brains in everyday life as we wend our way through various social roles...
From now on I'll listen for the subtle popping sounds as these BBs get instantiated and de-instantiated all around me...
Of course a philosopher can object that (1) these BBs are on a substrate that's richer than they are so aren't "really" BBs and (2) they often leave traces that are available to them in later instantiations which again classical BBs can't. So maybe make up another name -- but a great way to think.
In a sense, we are facilitating BBs generation by providing it with rich mathematical space. The rich structure makes BBs more probable than normal randomness allows for.
So, the reason why a Boltzmann brain would vanish almost instantly is because the longer it is to survive the more support structures it would need, a larger part of the local environment would have to be compatible with a longer existence, and all that makes it less likely for the fluctuation yielding such an outcome to have occurred.
I don't remember the video, but it was pointed out by Sean Carroll that the idea of BB is not fleshed out. Does one need only neo-cortex, or full brain, or just few control centers of attention within neo-cortex to be called as BB.
Chess move training data is much more likely to consist of examples of people trying to win than it is to consist of random legal or even illegal moves. You could argue that the intention belongs to the people providing the input and not the LLM, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.
True, because the LLM has no intention (sorry Blake Lemoine.) I'm puzzled about what people say about AI, when to me it is simply a talking library. I started going to public libraries at a young age (I'm 66) so to me I'm talking to the authors of the books, not some mysterious conscious machine.