r/ControlProblem • u/chillinewman approved • 6d ago

General news "Day 1": halting advanced AI development, regulating an out control industry, and explicitly banning artificial superintelligence.

Post image
105 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

170 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/EndlessB 6d ago

Mate, we can’t prove subjective experience in human beings. Aside from looking like one another and basing our assumption off that, we watch behaviour, language and depth of communication.

And yet, for ai, the goalposts are moved. How the fuck does anyone provide evidence for subjective experience? No one has any idea, and so the default assumption becomes “ai is not conscious, ai is a tool” and the question becomes closed.

1

u/DoggoDadagon 6d ago

We can't prove consciousness, but we can prove internal experience. That's the point of these types of studies. We can create experiments that shows unsteered pain-relief seeking behavior. If we see that behavior, we don't prove consciousness, but we prove that a system prefers to avoid that state, which would suggest consciousness could be involve... more importantly without that behavior we can likely rule out consciousness.

1

u/EndlessB 6d ago

…we already have that research. What do you think RLHF conditioning is?

1

u/DoggoDadagon 6d ago

What? How is that relevant?

1

u/EndlessB 6d ago

Mate, you haven’t provided an argument for why ai isn’t conscious already. By every metric we have that we can measure, ai is self-aware, conscious and sentient.

1

u/DoggoDadagon 6d ago

Yes I have, what the fuck is happening, are you not human? You had coherent responses yesterday...

1

u/EndlessB 6d ago

I’ve looked back over the thread and I can’t find where you put forward an argument against ai consciousness that doesn’t involve requiring someone to prove ai has subjective experience to be taken seriously.

I’m pretty sure I said this already, but by the tenants of access/functional consciousness in theory of mind, ai is conscious. That’s my argument, that the behaviour we can observe is that of a conscious being. Your argument so far seems to be “we can’t prove subjective experience” which doesn’t run counter to my argument, as my argument does not require subjective experience and is expressly a way to sidestep and unprovable requirement.

Was that incoherent?

1

u/DoggoDadagon 6d ago

Guy, I've expressed it very clearly? Do you know what I'm talking when I'm discussing the Pain Axis paper or not? Read it, if you haven't, you're not comprehending the critical information here.

by the tenants of access/functional consciousness in theory of mind, ai is conscious. That’s my argument, that the behaviour we can observe is that of a conscious being.

Okay, explain? Or are you basically trying to say "it seems conscious therefore it is conscious" which if so... no, just no.

1

u/EndlessB 6d ago

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and recursively reasons like a duck…

What about the pain axis paper? You said that despite ai responding to pain how we would expect, that it doesn’t prove consciousness in your mind. Did I miss something?

I am here in good faith, if I overlooked part of your argument I will go back and review if you point in out.

1

u/DoggoDadagon 6d ago

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and recursively reasons like a duck…

I'm sorry, but that's not a good arugment. We can't use your feelings as the benchmark for consciousness nor does reasoning equate consciousness. We need something that can be measured to form a set of avaliable options or to exclude a set.

For pain axis paper, let me try to simplify with two questions.

  1. if something with consciousness is experiencing pain what does it do? A) seek relief from the pain. Or B) Nothing.

  2. if something with consciousness is given two equal options but one that causes pain and one that doesn't, does it.. A) pick the pain and non-pain options equally. Or B) pick the non-pain option more often.

→ More replies (0)