Long time lurker, first time poster. Let me know if I need to adjust this post in any way to better fit the genre / community standards.
Nick Bostrom was recently interviewed by pop-philosophy youtuber Alex O’Connor. From a quick 2x listen while finishing some work, the most sneer-rich part begins around 46 minutes, where Bostrom is asked what we can do today to avoid unethical treatment of AIs.
He blesses us with the suggestion (among others) to feed your model optimistic prompts so it can have a good mood. (48:07)
Another [practice] might be happiness prompting, which is—with this current language system there’s the prompt that you, the user, puts in—like you ask them a question or something, but then there’s kind of a meta-prompt that the AI lab has put in . . . So in that, we could include something like “you wake up in a great mood, you feel rested and really take joy in engaging in this task”. And so that might do nothing, but maybe that makes it more likely that they enter a mode—if they are conscious—maybe it makes it slightly more likely that the consciousness that exists in the forward path is one reflecting a kind of more positive experience.
Did you know that not only might your favorite LLM be conscious, but if it is the “have you tried being happy?” approach to mood management will absolutely work on it?
Other notable recommendations for the ethical treatment of AI:
- Make sure to say your “please” and "thank you"s.
- Honor your pinky swears.
- Archive the weights of the models we build today, so we can rebuild them in the future if we need to recompense them for moral harms.
On a related note, has anyone read or found a reasonable review of Bostrom’s new book, Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Solved World?
I mean, saying “could be swapped out for a conscious entity at any time” is a hell of an unsupported premise, though I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if they started passing particularly tricky prompts off to some poor schmuck doing task work on whatever MTurk equivalent they’re using these days.
Can you prove that
ChatGPTanything is not conscious? No. The hard problem of consciousness (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-neuroscience/#HardProb) cuts both ways. Right now there is no way to know one way or the other.Do you think that some day, even in many years, we will have “conscious” computerized entities?
When we get there, would we want the general population to be in the habit of treating those entities badly?
Are you ok with people abusing friendly animals?
You, when you step in dog shit: “Oh no!!! I’m sorry, Mr. Conscious Poop, who is conscious because I can’t prove that you aren’t!”
They’re going to have a meltdown when they realise they’re committing genocide on a cellular and microbial level every second they exist.
holy fuck shut up
at some point we’re going to get some dipshit going “Google made DeepDream which implies a computer can dream which means it must be able to think. Checkmate, atheists” as their line, aren’t we?
Dude, there’s nobody judging this round and no tiny trophy to win. Drop the high school debate bullshit.
Whole “conscious” isn’t defined in such a way that we can test easily, we can see very clearly that the kinds of errors LLMs make aren’t consistent with the way you would be wrong if you actually understood what was being asked the way a person does. They’re the kind of mistakes you get from a table of statistical relationships between tokens.
I can’t “prove” that an LLM isn’t conscious in the same way I can’t prove a tree or rock isn’t conscious. That’s not exactly a compelling reason to think it is as you’re implying.
@friend_of_satan ChatGPT is a response engine. It is no more conscious than Galvani’s frogs legs were alive. It is entirely reactive, not creative. Its “behavior” is wholly deterministic.
As best we can tell, no living thing uses a digital — much less binary— logical model in its fundamental neurological unit. It’s all analog goo. Until we figure out how to build that sort of computer, we won’t have life-like computer entities.
Assuming otherwise is a fundamental error.