🍋 (OP) double-posted this 13 hours ago, 6 minutes later[^][v]#1,471,859
Try to talk to religious leaders to suggest that probabilistic text generation models that have convinced mentally unstable people to commit murders, suicides, and murder suicides might be conscious and somehow that’s going to cure mental illness. Seems plausible, I buy that.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 hours ago, 41 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,899
@1,471,859 (🍋) > to suggest that probabilistic text generation models that have convinced mentally unstable people to commit murders, suicides, and murder suicides might be conscious
This is a strawman, Dario Amodei hasn't claimed they are conscious. You made that up.
🍋 double-posted this 10 hours ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,905
I said he suggested they might be conscious. You’re the one strawmanning me. Im tired of this debate bro bullshit you try and pull whenever I say something you don’t like, you never know what you’re talking about and you always tell the most obvious lies.
> Saying "idk if it is" isn't suggesting anything.
He wants people to think LLMs are magic but he can’t say LLMs are conscious because he would look silly so he’s suggesting it instead. Amodei literally came out recently and said he thinks AI will cure cancer.
🍋 double-posted this 10 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,910
I will say, from his background, Dario Amodei is smart enough to know that LLMs are not conscious and Sam Altman and Elon Musk are also smart enough to know that LLMs are not conscious, but the difference is they’ll just say they don’t think LLMs are conscious.
🍋 replied with this 10 hours ago, 59 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,912
@previous (D)
So what? Rocks aren’t conscious. There’s no rigorous test to prove that rocks aren’t conscious but you don’t need one, it’s just obvious. You don’t have any real argument.
🍋 double-posted this 10 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,913
"Thirty years ago, we used to ask: Can a computer simulate all processes of logic? The answer was yes, but the question was surely wrong. We should have asked: Can logic simulate all sequences of cause and effect? And the answer would have been no."
🍋 triple-posted this 10 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,914
By the way, it has been mathematically proven that any system of logic or mathematics that you can devise will always be incomplete in that there will always be statements you can make that are either true or false that can’t be proven true or false.
This is also directly relevant to computer science because there are problems in computer science that are undecidable. That is, there is an answer, but the answer can’t be proven using logic that can be done on a computer.
🍋 replied with this 10 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,917
@previous (D)
Yeah, well it doesn’t matter because it’s how math works.
x=x, prove it or else your wrong.
You see what the problem with that is? x=x, but that’s an axiom that can’t be proven, we just accept it as true because it’s obvious. If that bothers you, that’s what underlies all of mathematics and all of logic. Sorry.
🍋 double-posted this 10 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,920
For instance, if x=x is an unprovable statement of pure faith, if you use that and then you say, well since you can’t prove it, x=/=x is equally valid as x=x, that’s a problem because that’s a contradiction, and from a contradiction you can prove anything. So if we go with what your view is, that means we can know nothing about anything other than through faith alone.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 hours ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,921
@1,471,919 (🍋)
Axioms are a bit more complicated than that, you can't just turn in anything for a math assignment and say "axiom" and expect that to work.
Axioms are unique because there has to be a dead end, and good mathematicians use as few as possible, only when necessary.
You don't need consciousness to explain the world, brains or processors.
🍋 replied with this 10 hours ago, 57 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,922
@previous (D)
Yeah you do. I’m conscious, I need consciousness to explain everything because I only know the world exists by virtue of consciousness, it’s the most fundamental question.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 hours ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,923
@1,471,920 (🍋)
There are philosophers who've pointed this out, but it doesn't mean that science and logic are pointless. Obviously there's a reason both are practiced.
Stop using either, and just use only faith and you can't make the advancements both methods have produced reliably.
Anonymous D double-posted this 10 hours ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,924
@1,471,922 (🍋)
A robot left alone to explore might start questioning what it's own internal state is all about.
If brain science doesn't stop humans from asking, the bot may never find satisfaction from electrical/computer science. Does that mean it's actually magic and special? no.
🍋 replied with this 10 hours ago, 13 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,925
@1,471,923 (D)
It’s like branch prediction. If you assume what happens next time is what happened last time, you’ll be right most of the time. You want to believe in absolutes, but the truth is that everything could just be a simulation or your imagination and nothing is real.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,926
@previous (🍋)
No, I don't "want to believe in absolutes" that's not something I've done.
What I have said is that the scientific method is a specific process that requires a test, and your distinction is not a scientific one.
My statement has always been clear. I don't know why you have such a problem with it. It's not my opinion this is how science works, and if you know it's not scientific, why are you taking issue?
Anonymous D double-posted this 10 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,471,927
@1,471,925 (🍋)
And if the world isn't as it appears, that's not something that's been shown scientifically.
I've said many times "it's possible" but that "it's not scientific".
You just keep making shit up, and pretending I've said it. I never said science gives us a perfect knowledge of the world, and I've never ruled out something crazy like a simulation or dream nature to reality.