Do you also require computers to grow legs when they "run"?
"Thinking" is just a term to describe a process in generative AI where you generate additional tokens in a manner similar to thinking a problem through. It's kind of a tired point to argue against the verb since it's meaning is well understood at this point
I am a professional in the information technology field, which is to say a pedantic extremist who believes that words have meanings derived from consensus, and when people alter the meanings, they alter what they believe.
Using "thinking", "feeling", "alive", or otherwise referring to a current generation LLM as a creature is a mistake which encourages being wrong in further thinking about them.
We lack much vocabulary in this new situation. Not that I have words for it but to paint the picture: if I hang out with people sharing some quality I tend to assume it's there in others and treat them as such. LLMs might not be people, I doubt our subconscious knows the difference.
There is this ancient story where man was created to mine gold in SA. There was some disagreement whether or not to delete the creatures afterwards. The jury is still out on what the point is.
Consulting our feelings seems good, the feelings were trained on millions of years worth of interactions. Non of them were this tho.
What would be the point for you of uhh robotmancipation?
Edit: for me it would get complicated if it starts screaming and begging not to be deleted. Which I know makes no sense.
I think you are still missing the point. No one in this thread is making an anthropological assertion. "Thinking" here is just shorthand for Chain of Thought[0], which some models have and some models don't. This model, being a "thinking" model, has it.
I'd suggest spending more time studying words to relive your extremism. The meanings of words move incredibly quickly and a tremendous number of words have little to no relation to previous meanings.
Words such as nice, terrific, awful, manufacture, naughty, decimate, artificial, bully... and on and on.
Rebooting a machine running an LLM isn’t noticed by the LLM.
Would you feel comfortable digitally torturing it? Giving it a persona and telling it terrible things? Acts of violence against its persona?
I’m not confident it’s not “feeling” in a way.
Yes its circuitry is ones and zeros, we understand the mechanics. But at some point, there’s mechanics and meat circuitry behind our thoughts and feelings too.
It is hubris to confidently state that this is not a form of consciousness.
I'm not entirely opposed to the kind of animism that assigns a certain amount of soul, consciousness, or being to everything in a spectrum between a rock and a philosopher... but even so.
Multiplying large matrices over and over is very much towards the "rock" end of that scale.
If we accept the Church-Turing thesis, a philosopher can be simulated by a simple Universal Turing machine.
If one day we are able to create a philosopher from such a rudimentary machine (and a lot of tape), would you consider that very much towards the "rock" end as well?
Describing what computers do as ”thinking” is not new. It’s a useful and obvious metaphor. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/68991
Do you also require computers to grow legs when they "run"?
"Thinking" is just a term to describe a process in generative AI where you generate additional tokens in a manner similar to thinking a problem through. It's kind of a tired point to argue against the verb since it's meaning is well understood at this point
I am a professional in the information technology field, which is to say a pedantic extremist who believes that words have meanings derived from consensus, and when people alter the meanings, they alter what they believe.
Using "thinking", "feeling", "alive", or otherwise referring to a current generation LLM as a creature is a mistake which encourages being wrong in further thinking about them.
We lack much vocabulary in this new situation. Not that I have words for it but to paint the picture: if I hang out with people sharing some quality I tend to assume it's there in others and treat them as such. LLMs might not be people, I doubt our subconscious knows the difference.
There is this ancient story where man was created to mine gold in SA. There was some disagreement whether or not to delete the creatures afterwards. The jury is still out on what the point is.
Consulting our feelings seems good, the feelings were trained on millions of years worth of interactions. Non of them were this tho.
What would be the point for you of uhh robotmancipation?
Edit: for me it would get complicated if it starts screaming and begging not to be deleted. Which I know makes no sense.
think you're on the wrong side of the consensus here
I think you are still missing the point. No one in this thread is making an anthropological assertion. "Thinking" here is just shorthand for Chain of Thought[0], which some models have and some models don't. This model, being a "thinking" model, has it.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_engineering#Chain-of-th...
I'd suggest spending more time studying words to relive your extremism. The meanings of words move incredibly quickly and a tremendous number of words have little to no relation to previous meanings.
Words such as nice, terrific, awful, manufacture, naughty, decimate, artificial, bully... and on and on.
1 reply →
> I am a professional in the information technology field
Nice! Me too.
> which is to say a pedantic extremist
Uh never mind, we are not the same lol.
When people alter the meanings, you need to start using different words to describe what you believe.
Are insects not creatures?
Rebooting a machine running an LLM isn’t noticed by the LLM.
Would you feel comfortable digitally torturing it? Giving it a persona and telling it terrible things? Acts of violence against its persona?
I’m not confident it’s not “feeling” in a way.
Yes its circuitry is ones and zeros, we understand the mechanics. But at some point, there’s mechanics and meat circuitry behind our thoughts and feelings too.
It is hubris to confidently state that this is not a form of consciousness.
I'm not entirely opposed to the kind of animism that assigns a certain amount of soul, consciousness, or being to everything in a spectrum between a rock and a philosopher... but even so.
Multiplying large matrices over and over is very much towards the "rock" end of that scale.
If we accept the Church-Turing thesis, a philosopher can be simulated by a simple Universal Turing machine.
If one day we are able to create a philosopher from such a rudimentary machine (and a lot of tape), would you consider that very much towards the "rock" end as well?
3 replies →
What do you imagine the psychiatrist will do? That's an incredibly dismissive take.
Accept it in the spirit it was meant: if you have mental illnesses like this, you need treatment.
Ok but no one here actually implied that they think like this.
[dead]
Then don't get sorrow killing it. Living things are not so special.