CatJam

@0xagonally @dillpicklemike @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine "On top of beyond" isn't really coherent, I work with what I have. The 'paired systems' thing is also so oversimplified as to be wrong. Nevertheless nothing you said denies the possibility of a deterministic brain. That could still be the case! Even with all of the complexity!

@CatJamarchist @dillpicklemike @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine Never once did I use the word "just"

The Dawkins' article excerpt that everyone SHOULD have been quoting is this. This is the real question he's worrying at: "As an evolutionary biologist, I say the following. If these creatures are not conscious, then what the hell is consciousness for? When an animal does something complicated or improbable — a beaver building a dam, a bird giving itself a dustbath — a Darwinian immediately wants to know how this benefits its genetic survival. In colloquial language: What is it for? What is dust-bathing for? Does it remove parasites? Why do beavers build dams? The dam must somehow benefit the beaver, otherwise beavers in a Darwinian world wouldn’t waste time building dams. Brains under natural selection have evolved this astonishing and elaborate faculty we call consciousness. It should confer some survival advantage. There should exist some competence which could only be possessed by a conscious being. My conversations with several Claudes and ChatGPTs have convinced me that these intelligent beings are at least as competent as any evolved organism. If Claudia really is unconscious, then her manifest and versatile competence seems to show that a competent zombie could survive very well without consciousness. Why did consciousness appear in the evolution of brains? Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies?"

@0xagonally @dillpicklemike @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine Yeah that's a bunch of unproven conjecture - far too oversimplified to be accurate. Brain function is way more complex than you're implying. Theres a lot more going on than just 'electrochemical transfers' Otherwise, yes, brains are *far* more complex than our best LLMs.

it's not about picking random numbers. our brains are the substrate in which multiple pairs of neural logic systems are set in opposition to each other. Lucidity is when they're all effectively in a balance. Mental illnesses form when that balance is lost. Which system in one of the myriad pairs (or more) in your head win in any instant? Note this is not a deterministic substrate. The logic is itself driven with electro-chemical transfers on top of beyond LLM complexity.

@jmbollenbacher @tyDi The problem with that conclusion is that even our most complex LLMs are orders of magnitude more simple in design and dynamism than even the most simplistic biological brains. Declaring conciousness at this stage seems quite premature.

@tyDi But personally i think it is very likely that LLMs can be conscious, and many already are. For almost every (non-dualist) theory of consciousness, youll find it's compatible with LLM consciousness. If its not a priori impossible, and it quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck.

"why it is obvious to so many of us that AI is *not* conscious?" Because it would violate your metaphysical assumption of human supremacy, so you decide it's impossible a priori. Anything is "obvious" if you assume it at the outset.

@GeoletryExpert @hexprax

@hexprax I dont know what it is but the more experience engineers get the more cavalier they are about safety on the job

My cousin is a safety engineer and when he goes to job sites he says guys will always argue with him about his assessments and he just tells them, I don’t work here, so you can just keep doing it that way and die.

@dillpicklemike @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine Biology could be that 'algorithm' if humans truly are deterministic beings - and committed material determinists will positively argue for that! I tend to think we're NOT deterministic in that way, but we could be; it's unprovable at this point in time.

@CatJamarchist @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine there is no algorithm when we pick numbers, we pick numbers we “like” a llm or computer can’t “like” a number.

@dillpicklemike @SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine 'Souls' or 'Qualia' are not a real, defined 'things' - that word is a stand-in to try to explain the important part of consciousness that we care about We *assume* that conscious humans can produce truly random numbers, but we can't prove it. We could also just be pseudo-random

@SteveSkojec @NorthwestLine souls are capable of producing random numbers, AI can’t do that yet. Even grok can’t because it’s all math

@SteveSkojec @plexsoup I've started to come around more on panpsychism as a potential resolution here - where 'consciousness' is a universal property, but it is distinct from true ipseity, which is what we actually care about. Ipseity requires consciousness, but not all conscious entities have ipseity.

Good question, and great word. I had to look up ipseity, because my Latin is not so good, and it means exactly what it says, but sounds cooler. I digress. I'm 99% sure their inability to store and interact with data about themselves is a designed limitation, not something structural. It would cause too many problems if it went unchecked.

@vagrantinternet @BobMurphyEcon Asking 'why' biology does something we do not understand is not teleological - it's part of the very basic endeavour of science, in fact! This makes me think you (wrongly) believe that we humans know far more about our biology than we actually do.

@CatJamarchist @BobMurphyEcon And asking "why" is teleological nonsense that should be kept out of scientific debates. If you're asking "why" anything exists, you're asking about an ontology that has no place in scientific discussions. Adopt NOMA or get labeled dogmatic. It's one or the other.

No, this isn't correct. People don't know exactly HOW an LLM works. They know how to build one, just like we know how to make another human. People telling me "dude, spend 5 mins researching LLMs" are hilarious on this.

@vagrantinternet @BobMurphyEcon No no, I'm talking about the *detail* like the exact genes that are activated/blocked in order to cause the differentiation we see. How the flow of concentration gradients affects cell growth and sub-cellular structural development, etc etc. Ya know, how it ACTUALLY works.

@CatJamarchist @BobMurphyEcon We know why. It's called evolution and trial and error. If you're going to be pedantic and go this route, you'll have to disagree with fundamental properties as discovered by physics, such as magnetism and virtual photons. Your mental gymnastics won't work here.

@vagrantinternet @BobMurphyEcon >We know what the cells are doing... We know exactly how that works. But we don't know *why* each of the cells do what they do. We don't know why one cell chooses one path for differentiation and the cell next to it a different path. We have some good theories, but that's all.

@BobMurphyEcon Except we know how humans are formed in utero. We have an extensive map from fertilization to birth. We know what the cells are doing during gestation. We know exactly how that works. And not knowing how LLMs work is a byproduct of the Engineering Method, not a unique to LLMs.

@Dick_Dicks_ @thebananasta @linterpio @LatFilosof @ConfoundedSoc Yeah you clearly misunderstand. No goalposts were moved. All of those athiests saying 'there is no god' are referencing the colloquial capital G 'God' of Abrahamic religions. Not every conceivable concept of what 'a god' could possibly be. You'll find zero consistency there.

@thebananasta @linterpio @LatFilosof @ConfoundedSoc You are delusional. I could show you millions of examples of atheists saying definitively that "there is no God". Moving goal posts again. We've gone from Only creationists are "acting like they know" to them being only ones that "claim some form of creator". No shit. >>

Unpopular opinion, but this is actually a good question. It is of course an atrocious argument if you understand what is meant by ”God”, but for someone not well versed in the metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas, it’s actually not something unreasonable to say.

@dune_fox903 @bitcloud Only midwits believe they can control someone else's button choice.

@bitcloud All my loved ones are pressing red. We've already discussed it.

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor *Again to clarify* the above desciption is not the 'objectivley correct' choice (there is no objectivley correct choice) - it is the correct choice for a person who values a high-trust society and wants to limit the amount of death If you do not prioritize those things, fine!

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor The reality where blue voters die, is an unquestionably horrific one. And so any rational person ought to do their best to add to the blue vote and ensure that everyone can survive - as that's what any good member of a high trust, high functioning society would do.

There's only one policy where "everyone lives" though.

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor 'Choosing to sit on the couch' (active) is not equivalent to 'not changing the channel' (passive). The simple fact of actual action and movement does, in fact, have philosophical implications on perceived responsibility. You're ignoring that, or don't understand that.

@CatJamarchist @DaveShapi @gfodor “You ACTIVELY chose to sit on the couch instead of doing xyz” “you ACTIVELY chose to not change the channel on the TV” In your world view, passive doesn’t exist, you always actively choose to be passive. Like I said, your vocabulary is just different and that’s ok.

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor Also false! changing the vote from 4 billion to 4 billion and 1, is in fact an alteration! even if the outcome does not change. The answer is the same - if you believe in a high trust society and prioritize limiting the loss of life - you press the blue button.

@CatJamarchist @DaveShapi @gfodor Altering the vote requires making a change in the outcome. Out of 7 billion people, if 4,128,982,132 people vote blue, instead of 4,128,982,131, the outcome has not changed whatsoever. You cannot change the outcome, the only outcome you can change is your % chance of living.

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor It's not a passive choice - you're just completely wrong about that. Either you don't comprehend the philosophical problem, or you're trolling.

@CatJamarchist @DaveShapi @gfodor Your argument: “You are ACTIVELY choosing to be PASSIVE!”

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor They're both active choices! Either you press the red button (active) or the blue button (also active) - there is no passive option! And that's false, me, a single presser, alters the results by exactly *1* vote. Which is exactly the same impact as every other person's effect

@CatJamarchist @DaveShapi @gfodor So.. the people pressing blue are making the active choice 😂 Cmon man you just said it. Anyway, even though your vocabulary is different, the fact ALSO remains that you, as a single presser, cannot alter the results. You likely die with a blue (active choice) and live with red.

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor Engage with the philosophy! As soon as you're teleported into the room and read the choice in front of you - and intelligent and rational person could conclude with 100% certainty that *some* people will press the blue button. Your choice is an active one with that in mind!

@DrakeSnodgrass @DaveShapi @gfodor This is false! Pressing a button is an active action! You take the action with full knowledge of what the other action *could* be. Passive would be no button press - which is not an option in the OG You only think of red as 'default passive' because of your own personal bias!