WTF does a biologist know about computer pattern matching on steroids? Obviously not much, so to take his opinions on the topic seriously makes you just as wrong.
Lemmy Shitpost
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
Bad philosophy is what made him famous, not biology.
It flattered him and told him how smart and clever he was.
That means it has to be real.
My parents told me that I had the potential to do anything I wanted. That's how I know that they're LLMs
Dawkins is a creep so I would suspect him of quite a lot of bias (and of sexually harassing that poor AI), but zoologists are more qualified than most scientists to measure sentience. Many other zoologists have studied the sentience of various nonhuman species such as chimps, parrots, and dolphins. And many zoologists studying nonhuman intelligence have also been implicated in bestiality scandals, as I'm sure Dawkins will be if we decide that Claude is an animal.
sexually harassing that poor AI
I think my eyes hurt from rolling too far.
The idea that thoughts, or even words and numbers can be a virus are based on Dawkins notion of memes. Viruses exist in a state that is difficult to say that they are alive or not (by our definition of life), similarly AI or even alien sentience is difficult to define. Can we know if a dog is sentient, or a bird, or ant? and if they are, what is their sentience?
Basically, if a number like 23 can be a virus, ie. once you are aware of the number 23, you will see it everywhere and it will hold significance, is the number 23 alive?
AI does seem to be aware of it's self, at lest it responds as if it is. can we really know if it is or not, and if it is self aware, is it not sentient?
and then there's Dawkins has been a twat lately, I'm not trying to defend him but trying to understand his rationale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Worth a read for anyone who thinks AI may be sentient, or for those trying to pop the psychosis bubble of an buddy.
Does it have a mind or is it just simulating a mind?
What would even be the difference in this case besides the artificiality of the mind?
So a "Chinese Room" is more of an illusion of consciousness than anything else. The main idea is that the person operating the room doesn't speak/write Mandarin/Cantonese/etc, they're just giving pre-determined responses according to the flowchart/binder full of rules. They don't actually understand anything that's going on, not what they're being asked, not what they're providing as an answer, they just know that when the symbol "A" appears, they must respond with "B". If asked to do anything outside the parameters given, or otherwise not listed in that flowchart then the whole system would collapse. A "Chinese Room" is just a very elaborate version of those automated phone systems where they ask you to "Press 1 to go to Accounts Recievable"; if you know EXACTLY what to say and where, you'll probably be fine, but most of the time its just going to be easier to talk to a real live person instead.
The issue is that the man in the room isn't the mind, he's an appendage. He doesn't know what's going on because his mind isn't the "mind," the program generating the instructions is the mind, and if it's sufficiently powerful, it may possibly be considered intelligent. It's like how your hand doesn't understand English, it just follows the instructions sent to it by your brain that does. I'm not saying current "AI" is intelligent - it definitely isn't, but I think that a sufficiently powerful computer program could be. We're just a long way off from that.
Guy who invented the Chinese Room though experiment : Look! If I write a flowchart that precisely imitates a Chinese person's mind, then it looks like a Chinese person's mind, even though it's just a flowchart!
Reddit level reply : Of course! A flowchart is capable of precisely imitating all the functions of a person's mind, even though it isn't conscious. Therefore, consciousness cannot be measured behaviourally!
Scientist level reply : I don't know if flowcharts can be conscious because I've never been a highly advanced flowchart. But if flowcharts can be made advanced enough to precisely imitate the behaviour of a conscious mind, I guess they might be capable of consciousness after all.
Right it's silly to deny consciousness (a phenomenon we know almost nothing about) just because we can see the inner workings of a system.
Yeah, I once used a TMS machine to magnetically stimulate a guy's brain and force him to move his hand. I have a pretty good understanding of how the brain works on a functional level. About as good as My understanding of LLMs, maybe better. Still no idea how the brain produces qualia.
Wait actually? Can you tell me more about the process and how it works? Genuinely curious
We know nothing about a lot of things, and we can deny them with certainty, due to probability.
Just because you close your eyes and want it to happen, won't make it happen.
I always was on the hand of Dennet, how believe in the possibility of strong AI and held that a machine that passed the Turing test must be conscious.
Modern LLM's have shown that a computer can pass the Turing test, even without understanding or consciousness. In that way it's fortunate that Dennet didn't get to live through it's insurgence. I would be curious to his take, though.
I loved the vitriol he had in his denial of Searle and the Chinese room argument, though.
Intelligence and conciousness aren't as special as people think they are. And these things are on a spectrum. And a rock, that you pickup off the ground is greater than 0 on that conciousness spectrum.
I don't see why he isn't allowed to have an opinion on these things. Or how anyone in this thread dismissing his qualifications, where is theirs?
"I can't prove it... but I deeply believe it... and I want you to respect my belief"
That coming from Dawkins? His apostles backing him up on that?
I feel like Aston Kutcher is about to jump out of the bushes to tell me I've been punk'd.
Don't see what the problem is. Don't know why you are trying to inject religion to dimish him.
I presume it is the case that because of his take on transgender individuals that you don't like him. That's fine I respect your beliefs, I disliked him before that but I'm cool. You can do that but you can't also reference someone like Ashton Kutcher in jest at the same time. Considering he openly supports a rapist, is a weird ass scientology freak and his foundation for victims of human trafficking was setup in connection with epstiens buddies. Guy is shady as fuck.
I'm in support for the campaign to give LLMs animal rights because it'll hurt OpenAI's profits. I hate OpenAI for their destruction of the environment and the murders and suicides they caused. If AI rights cost them money, then I support AI rights.
It's worth remembering that OpenAI has a big profit incentive to deny that LLMs can be abused, and a tool precision designed to spout propaganda on the internet. If you think OpenAI isn't influencing the debate on this, you're living under a rock.
I don't think it's a good idea to support or oppose rights based convenience. The issue with that is rights apply most in situations where people have the most desire to oppose them.
And since OpenAI has a big big profit incentive to deny AI animal rights, I think this is a very important area to support those rights.
Agreed
For God's sake, Grok has been taken down multiple times to have its frequencies tweaked and to make its words align with company policies. What rights? Will companies not be allowed to do that anymore? Is the world going to be incresingly littered with inviolable but unsupported LLMs spouting tinges of the same nonsense. Or will this just be that companies are along to double their votes by dumping out LLMs that vote how they've programmed to.
If these people believe consciousness is just loaded dice guessing a next word, that's their own hang-up.
Huh, I didn't realize that old Biologists have the same issue as old Physicists.
I think is a generic old people issue.