[K0balt]

Yeah, AI “consciousness “ is much stickier problem than most people want to frame it.

I haven’t been able to find an intellectually honest reason to rule out a kind of fleeting sentience for LLMs and potentially persistent sentience for language-behavioral models in robotic systems.

Don’t get me wrong, they are -just- looking up the next most likely token… but since the data that they are using to do so seems to capture at least a simulacrum of human consciousness, we end up in a situation where we are left to judge what a thing is by it’s effects. (Because that also is the only way we have of describing what something is)

So if we aren’t just going to make claims we can’t substantiate, we’re stuck with that.

[Bjartr]

Our brains have separate regions for processing language and emotion. Brains are calorically expensive and having one bigger than required is an evolutionary fitness risk. It therefore seems likely that if one system could have done a good job of both simultaneously, there would be a lot of evolutionary pressure to do that instead.

The question is: Is thinking about emotion the same thing as feeling?

This framing actually un-stucks us to some degree.

If we examine neuron activations in LLMs and can find regions that are active when discussing its own emotional processing that are distinct from the regions for merely talking about emotion in general and these regions are also active when doing tasks that the LLM claims are emotional tasks but not actively talking about them at the time, then it'd be far more convincing that there could be something deeper than mere text prediction happening.

[K0balt]

The emotional argument is pretty good I think, but it begs the question of what it’s going to look like when we build a limbic system for robots? It’s adaptive because it’s necessary to optimize utility, so I expect that certain behavioral aspects of mammalian limbic systems will be needed in order to integrate well with humans. In language models, those behavior mechanisms are already somewhat encoded in the vector matrix.

We just don’t have a factual basis for claiming consciousness that really transcends “I think, therefore I am”.

As for the simplistic mechanism, I agree that token prediction doesn’t constitute consciousness, in the same way that a Turing machine does not equal a web browser.

Both require software to become something.

For LLMs that software is the vector matrix created in the training process. It is a very complex algorithm that encodes a substantial subset of human culture.

Data and algorithms are interchangeable. Any algorithm can be performed in a pure lookup table, any lookup table can be extrapolated from a pure algorithm. Data==computation. For LLMs, the algorithm is contained in a n dimensional lookup table of vectors.

Having a fundamentally distinct mode of computational representation does not rule out equivalence.

Uncomfortable thoughts, but it’s where the logic leads.

[bee_rider]

Maybe rocks and trees are also conscious. I mean, consciousness-ium hasn’t been discovered yet, right? So who’s to say what it looks like.

[K0balt]

Even though this seems flippant, I think we may eventually come to understand that nearly all complex life forms exhibit consciousness, albeit at a very, very different speed than we may be accustomed to. If we think of genetic and epigenetic signaling as analogous to other forms of communication, we might find that populations of organisms (including ones we don’t think of as forming “colonies”) may arguably be operating holistically as a being, potentially with consciousness in the mix.

We have a long way to go to explore this, and I have no doubt that the exploration will turn up a lot of surprises.