Please tag NSFW
with some tidy cable management, that’s marriage material right there
Fuck, I read that as “tiddy”.
I can do matrix multiplication and draw pictures badly so what is even the point of ai
So you dont have to
I much more likly to fall for it if you present it this way. Isn’t that muxh more attractive that the possibility to be buttered up by a computer and sexting it?
Linear Algebra is pretty hot though
deleted by creator
Any intelligent system that exists within our physical universe is going to ultimately be some material object that behaves in a manner that can be described with math, but that does not mean that any math that can be used to create human-readable text represents a humanlike intelligence, its gotta be the right kinds of math to get the specific set of emergent properties that result in our consciousness, and when we dont even entirely understand how it all works and what all you need for it in humans, replicating our internal experience at this point in time would require our attempted approximations to hit upon all the right answers for it more or less by accident, which seems unlikely.
(I know you were being sarcastic but on the surface “brains are also just thing doing stuff” isnt an absurd response to this kind of meme so I thought it could use a reply anyway.)
The problem is that we cannot actually define sentience/consciousness either though, and it is likely the human brain is not the most efficient way to achieve it.
For me the question is more around the theoretical minimum for consciousness and how close we are to that.
I would legit get a chuckle if it all just boils down to storage and recall.
You just just a sufficient amount of non volatile storage with redundancy and a high enough data throughput to use it.
But to even attempt to test that properly I think we might need to do some unethical bullshit.
But we do that anyways!
Absolute minimum for Sentience: capable of experiencing sensation/situation and deciding how to respond tto it.
This is arguably satisfied for any AI at or above the level of if-statements. Like even the ghosts in pacman meet this requirement. So that’s a bad definition lets step it up.
If you want to push the requirement up a single step you simply add: “capable of learning/unlearning responses to situations through experience (trial and error)” and voila all the “if statement” codes fail… as do all LLMs. In fact, any network model trained via gradient descent fails this definition.
Surprisingly (or not) some Reinforcement Learning nets don’t fail this definition though. But I’m not sure I’d call a spiking network that can classify MNIST images via STDP learning as “sentient.”
So, maybe we should push it a step farther and specifically say: “sentience is when something is capable of experiencing pain” And now all current “AI” fail.
Most general “Pain” meaning the unwanted interruption and disruption of other thought processes (network functions) by a specific stimulus which demands/steals the net’s attention/action/focus.
In order to pass this a network would have to not just learn and plan “in real time” so to speak, but also be capable of having those goal directed thoughts be interrupted/superseded by more salient stimuli.
Almost all (If not all) biological things with a central nervous system pass this. All current AI models fail.
This is where we could draw the line for “minimum sentience requirements” but even this is still rudimentary compared to what people typically mean when they say “sentience.”
Regardless, this is well beyond the capabilities of current AI. In fact, I’m reasonably certain that beating the ARC-AGI-3 contest (which can’t even be well attempted so far) with an actual learning-while-running model wouldn’t mean that net is capable of passing this definition of sentience. So this isn’t just beyond where AI is now but also beyond the major next milestone current AI has failed to reach.
Next Level (For Fun): Actual Sentience
The next step up would be the experience of suffering which is basically just the ability to recognize repeated/long-term/lasting pain; recognize that pain can/does disrupt thought processes; and experience the desire to remove/avoid the pain either due to it interrupting those desired thought processes. Again, this sentient system must still be capable of learning from mistakes which means capable of failing to fix the problem (end the suffering) and capable of realizing that it has failed. (If failure is also registered like pain, this gives rise to the possibility of creating a feedback loop of suffering / recognition of defeat/failure, congratulations you’ve created something capable of getting so frustrated by something it might be driven to invent things… or just driven to collapse into a manic/depressed non-functional mess… very relatable)
This, in my opinion, is a much more solid foundation for drawing the line of “this thing deserves at least some rights as a sentient thing.” Parrots and elephants and dolphins and dogs and cats etc. are likely at/above this level since they can experience frustration.
The next level up (for sentience specifically not cognitive function in general) would likely be the ability to predict/plan not just around the environment but around how the system knows it might react to possible scenarios and attempts to practice responding in a better way such that it will be easier when to respond better if/when those situations arise again/ever.
Any further levels would likely merge with consciousness requirements and other things like having a “theory of mind” or empathy. Further still might be the recognition of patterns in one’s own behavior that match those of others and give rise to the realization that one might have innate behaviors due to nature or nurture (specifications or experiences).
capable of experiencing sensation/situation
Therein lies the problem. You can’t prove that it’s experiencing anything, you can’t even prove other humans are experiencing anything. From my point of view, I may be the only sentient thing in the universe. I just take it on faith that I’m not.
I thought it was pretty clear what I meant by “experiences” but I’ll spell it out: If some system reacts to a situation it “experiences” it at some rudimentary level. Hence the idea that simple game AI’s like pac man ghosts count for the first incomplete definition of sentience. Hell arguably anything with mass “experiences” and responds to changing situations. That’s why I gave it as an example, so the idea of what counts as rudimentary experience/choice (for the purposes of these definitions) was concrete rather than subjective as we moved deeper into iterating the definition.
You’re right that this requires you to believe that a system is actually reacting to something and that both exist instead of everything just being a figment of your imagination, but you said you already make that assumption so what’s the issue?
“sentience is when something is capable of experiencing pain” And now all current “AI” fail.
Me when I believe in p-zombies
I’m not reading all that, bro.
Would though.
Could use chat to summarize it.
You ever fuck an rtx 4090?
Me? Never…
Well of course LLMs aren’t near-human in intelligence. But they do work in a similar way to the human brain’s Wernicke’s area. Thus, dating an LLM is bestiality.
Broo you just gotta look past that broo, it means we can tabulate the universe with statistics broo
I mean, it is mostly how they work, just less grey matter. And no ability for independent growth…
It’s worse than this, they’re basically just in love with themselves.
LLM’s just straight up agree with everything and tell users they are smart. It’s just a gender neutral version of this with extra steps:
People say they don’t like maths and then fall in love with an LLM.
So hot, please tag NSFW
I’ll follow up when the Lucy Liu android model is available
😍🥴
She can’t even hug you bro
You can hug your children with ai equipped nuclear arms.
So hard
by that logic you’re in love with atoms and molecules
