|
|
|
|
|
|
by Maxatar
487 days ago
|
|
|
The problem with this line of argument is that nothing an LLM, or any algorithm period can ever have a theory of mind. If behaving in a way that is identical to a person with actual consciousness can't be considered consciousness because you are familiar with its implementation details, then it's impossible to satisfy you. Now you can argue of course that current LLMs do not behave identically to a person, and I agree and I think most people agree... but things are improving drastically and it's not clear what things will look like 10 years from now or even 5 years from now. |
|
|
Something nice, but at the moment totally unattainable with our current technologies, would be our own understanding of how a technology achieves ToM. If it has to be a blackbox, I'm too ape-like to trust it or believe there's an inner world beyond statistics within the machine.
Having said that, I do wonder quite often if our own consciousness is spurred from essentially the same thing. An LLM lacks much of the same capabilities that makes our inner world possible, yet if we really are driven by our own statistical engines, we'd be in no position to criticize algorithms for having the same disposition. It's very grey, right?
For now, good LLMs do an excellent job demonstrating ToM. That's inarguable. I suppose my hangup is that it's happening on metal rather than in meat, and in total isolation from many other mind-like qualities we like to associate with consciousness or sentience. So it seems wrong in a way. Again, that's probably the ape in me recoiling at something uncanny.