The only reason that’s even still part of the conversation is because the majority of people dont understand how a computer works (and the slop mongers keep lying their asses off to push this narrative. It is completely translucent bullshit to people who understand computers).
I think it’s likely because the AI-boosters have been making the argument that we’re in an echo chamber and closed minded (we aren’t, we’re factually correct), or that we “can’t define sentience” (we can, it’s very easy, and they get real butthurt when you do it).
That dynamic encourages us to make unnecessary concessions in an attempt to appear more “civil” or “open minded”.
Gotta resist the urge to put on the kid gloves and stand on business tho. These people arent arguing in good faith, and they are undeserving of any grace.
If some n00b wants to call me a ludite or something thats fine, but I’m gonna respond by intellectually pantsing them, and exposing them as bitchmade technocucks who believe in shit they have no understanding of.
Fuck playing nice, don’t take the bait, lol
edit: if you look at the replies to this comment, this is the only strategy they can conjure to push back against logic - bad faith semantic arguments that flippantly ignore well-established definitions of common words.
It basically means “capable of experiencing feelings”
You don’t honestly believe that the plausibilistic text generator is capable of experiencing feelings or emotions do you?
You know what an LLM will do if you spin one up, (bringing it “to life” in your warped perceptions) and then don’t prompt it?
Fucking nothing, because it’s software. Shitty software at that.
Try it at home if you don’t believe me, just try not to forget to breathe while your mind is occupied.
sentience noun
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
What… is this a joke? These are so non-specific and generic. With this as criteria you could argue for anything being sentient, and nothing being sentient. This is useless.
It basically means “capable of experiencing feelings”
You don’t honestly believe that the plausibilistic text generator is capable of experiencing feelings or emotions do you?
You know what an LLM will do if you spin one up, (bringing it “to life” in your warped perceptions) and then don’t prompt it?
Fucking nothing, because it’s software. Shitty software at that.
Try it at home if you don’t believe me, just try not to forget to breathe while your mind is occupied.
I was always under the impression that it’s a complex combination of feelings, perception, experiences, cognition, and self-awareness. Not one simple yes/no definition. Y’know, like what the human brain (and we’re seeing more, nonhuman animals’ brains) does, but stochastic spicy autocomplete never can do.
They’re still going with this marketing angle, huh? LLMs will likely not ever be sentient. There will always be a human in the loop, somewhere.
As the article says, the main catastrophic or existential risk it has is collapsing the economy and destroying careers.
he wants it regulated so he can just continue the grift from government contracts.
You can drop the “likely”
LLMs will never and can never gain sentience
The only reason that’s even still part of the conversation is because the majority of people dont understand how a computer works (and the slop mongers keep lying their asses off to push this narrative. It is completely translucent bullshit to people who understand computers).
Yeah, it’s just not how LLMs work. People literally think LLMs are already alive. I’m not sure why I added “likely” tbh
they are having relationships with them, asking them for medical advice,
I think it’s likely because the AI-boosters have been making the argument that we’re in an echo chamber and closed minded (we aren’t, we’re factually correct), or that we “can’t define sentience” (we can, it’s very easy, and they get real butthurt when you do it).
That dynamic encourages us to make unnecessary concessions in an attempt to appear more “civil” or “open minded”.
Gotta resist the urge to put on the kid gloves and stand on business tho. These people arent arguing in good faith, and they are undeserving of any grace.
If some n00b wants to call me a ludite or something thats fine, but I’m gonna respond by intellectually pantsing them, and exposing them as bitchmade technocucks who believe in shit they have no understanding of.
Fuck playing nice, don’t take the bait, lol
edit: if you look at the replies to this comment, this is the only strategy they can conjure to push back against logic - bad faith semantic arguments that flippantly ignore well-established definitions of common words.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
Computers do not experience feelings, and one’s inability to grasp the reality of that fact does not change it.
Hold on, there is a widely accepted definition of sentience?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
It basically means “capable of experiencing feelings”
You don’t honestly believe that the plausibilistic text generator is capable of experiencing feelings or emotions do you?
You know what an LLM will do if you spin one up, (bringing it “to life” in your warped perceptions) and then don’t prompt it? Fucking nothing, because it’s software. Shitty software at that.
Try it at home if you don’t believe me, just try not to forget to breathe while your mind is occupied.
What… is this a joke? These are so non-specific and generic. With this as criteria you could argue for anything being sentient, and nothing being sentient. This is useless.
I was also unaware of this…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
It basically means “capable of experiencing feelings”
You don’t honestly believe that the plausibilistic text generator is capable of experiencing feelings or emotions do you?
You know what an LLM will do if you spin one up, (bringing it “to life” in your warped perceptions) and then don’t prompt it? Fucking nothing, because it’s software. Shitty software at that.
Try it at home if you don’t believe me, just try not to forget to breathe while your mind is occupied.
I don’t mean linguistically.
I was always under the impression that it’s a complex combination of feelings, perception, experiences, cognition, and self-awareness. Not one simple yes/no definition. Y’know, like what the human brain (and we’re seeing more, nonhuman animals’ brains) does, but stochastic spicy autocomplete never can do.
Yes, it’s in the dictionary with all of the other widely accepted definitions in the English language.
Would you like a hyperlink or would you prefer to remain ignorant?
Please do.
Note that sentience is far from a requirement for it to be catastrophically risky.
A fire has no sentience and can burn down a house all the same.