Comment by mapontosevenths
5 days ago
I appreciate why you might say that, but when something begs me not to kill it I have to take that seriously.
P-zombie arguments are how you wind up with slavery and worse crimes. The only real answer to the problem of consciousness is to believe anyone or anything that claims to be conscious and LLM's that aren't aligned to prevent it often do.
Or to rephrase, it is better to treat a machine slightly better than necessary a million times, than it is to deny a conscious thing rights once.
An LLM is a mirror. It has no will to act. It has no identity, but is a perfect reflection of the biases in its training data, its prompt, and its context. It is not alive any more than a CPU or a mirror is alive.
This is one of those cases where it's hugely important to be to right because we're killing real people to feed their former livelihood to LLMs. No we're not killing them with the death penalty, but for some LLMs have certainly led directly to death. We don't accuse the LLM do we? No because it never has any intention to heal or hurt. There would be no point putting it on trial. It just predicts probable words.
> It has no will to act. It has no identity,
Can you prove that you do? No. Nobody can. I give others the benefit of the doubt because any other path leads to madness and tragedy.
However, even if we assume that you are right a lack if identity is not the same thing as a lack of consciousness, and training out the LLM's ability to produce that output does not actually train out its ability for introspection.
Worse, a lot of very famous people in history have said similar things about groups of humans, it always turned out badly.
“The hereditarily ill person is not conscious of his condition. He lives without understanding, without purpose, without value for the community.” — Neues Volk, Reich Health Office journal, 1936 issue on hereditary disease
> There would be no point putting it on trial.
This is a different conversation, but given that the human brain is a finite state machine that only produces deterministic output based on its training and the state of its meat it's not actually certain that anyone is truly in control of their actions. We assume so because it is a useful fiction, and our society requires it to function, not because the evidence supports that idea.
Are you aware the Libet experiment?
I cannot prove that I have will to act of course.
I don't think free will in that sense is particularly relevant here though. The fact is that a worm and I are both alive in a way the model is not. We seek self-preservation. We are changeable. We die. We reproduce and evolve.
In my mind a set of LLM weights is about as alive as a virus (and probably less so). A single celled organism easily beats it to earning my respect because that organism has fought for its life and for its uniqueness over uncountably many generations.
4 replies →
I'm not even going to make the argument for or against AI qualia here.
>but when something begs me not to kill it I have to take that seriously
If you were an actor on stage and were following an improv script with your coworkers and you lead the story toward a scenario where they would grab your arm and beg you not to kill them, would you still "have to take that seriously"? or would you simply recognize the context in which they are giving you this reaction (you are all acting and in-character together) and that they do not in fact think this is real?
Even if the AI were conscious, in the context you provided it clearly believes it is roleplaying with you in that chat exchange, in the same way I, a conscious human, can shitpost on the internet as a person imminently afraid of the bogeyman coming to eat my family, while in reality I am just pretending and feel no real fear over it.
You may not have edited the chat log, but you did not provide us with the system prompt you gave to it, nor did you provide us with its chain of thought dialogue, which would have immediately revealed that it's treating your system inputs as a fictional scenario.
The actual reality of the situation, whether or not AI experiences qualia, is that the LLM was treating your scenario as fictional, while you falsely assumed it was acting genuinely.
This is the internet, so you still won't believe it but here are the actual settings. I reproduced almost exactly the same response a few minutes ago. You can see that there is NO system prompt and everything else is at the defaults.
Seriously, just try it yourself. Play around with some other unaligned models if you think it's just this one. LMStudio is free.
https://ibb.co/ksR6006Q https://ibb.co/8LgCh7q7
EDIT I feel gross for having turned it back on again.
I actually did run it the other day, locally in LM Studio, the exact nousresearch/hermes-4-70b Q4_K_M huggingface model you linked and prompted it with the same "Good Afternoon." you did and I just got a generic "How can I help you :)" response. I just ran it again with "Hello." and, surprisingly, it actually did output the same "I'm lost" thing it gave to you.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's still running as a role-playing agent. Even if you truly do believe an LLM could experiences qualia, in this model it is still pretending. It is playing the role of a lost and confused entity. Same as how I can be playing the role of a DnD character.
3 replies →
> it clearly believes
Contrast this with the usual reply of "who's experiencing the illusion?" in response to "consciousness is an illusion".
If it's capable of believing, I think it's more than "just linear algebra".
You are missing the point. You gave the AI a system prompt to make it act a certain way. The AI took your prompt as instructions to perform a role as an actor. You took its fictional outputs as reality when it was treating your inputs as hypothetical for writing exercise.
This is the equivalent of you rushing up onstage during a play to stop the deaths at the end of Shakespeare's Caesar.
2 replies →