12,730 karma · joined September 9, 2011
We should not be gung-ho to give the government more power to regulate speech.
People who say LLMs have subjective experience aren't saying they have human-type subjective experience. Nobody who sees an LLM express hunger when role playing as a hungry person thinks that the LLM is actually hungry.
I too can role play as a hungry person despite not being hungry, so there is no reason in either case to conclude that the words produced reflect genuine internal subjective states. The point is that such internal states may still exist.
The reason I insist on mechanistic models is because the original post was making a definitive knowledge claim, and in my experience, the knowledge claim is unwarranted.
I don't see why an LLM could not have a sense of identity or personality while it's evaluating a specific prompt, or even change self awareness while evaluating a prompt since many outputs model a back and forth conversation. My point is that without a mechanistic model of what "self awareness" means, we have no way of truly evaluating such questions, we're just hand waving vague intuitions about what it could mean.
For example, the Turing machines and the lambda calculus don't look anything alike, but they are fundamentally interconvertible, and so in a real sense they are fundamentally equivalent. Without a model, all of your arguments are completely unconvincing for exactly the same reasons, eg. that there may exist many paths to fundamentally equivalent ends.
There is no objective evidence of qualia. All evidence of qualia are vocal or other expressions of belief in qualia. Perceptions clearly exist and are observable, subjective experience and qualia, not so much.
> I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.
If your objection is to models based on "symbolic level of language" which you think lack semantic understanding of, say, trees, you should ask yourself how our brain, based on physics which also lacks any semantic category for trees, can somehow develop a semantic understanding of trees. All of these appeals to differences with the brain never seem to acknowledge that fundamentally, the brain has the same explanatory gap with physics.
> But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience
This assumes a lot. It seems very possible to me that intelligence inherently develops a map of natural categories (natural kinds), and language naturally develops around such categorical understanding. Semantics are then fundamentally the network of associations between categories, eg. there is no fundamental difference between symbols and semantics, and the latter cam be inferred from the former, and that's exactly what LLMs do, and why the semantic maps between different languages are so similar and how they can translate between languages.
What is your mechanistic model of self awareness that yields this conclusion?
> It's a tool
Does your model suggest that tools can't have self awareness?
Are you suggesting "modern C" is less prone to memory safety issues, and that if MS used "modern C" then that would meaningfully reduce the 70% of security vulnerabilities it claims are caused by memory safety violations?
[1] a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
Comments can always be stripped reliably later.
That which can be created with little effort can be dismissed with little fanfare, since it can easily be recreated later if there's a need.
The other category of AI abandonware is one-off stuff. It did its job and there's no further use for it.
Translations are a lot more likely to be error-free and robust, as the original data structures and algorithms have been battle tested.
I'm not a fan of Trump's governance, but none of those people were investigated for "criticizing Trump's decisions".
> This has never happened in Europe.
Poland: The "Lex Tusk" Commission (2023)
Hungary: The Sovereignty Protection Office (2023)
Ukraine: Viktor Yanukovych vs. Yulia Tymoshenko (2011)
Turkey: Erdoğan vs. Ekrem İmamoğlu
Romania: Investigating the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor (2018)
France: The "Clearstream Affair" (2004)
> How is that a bad thing? If your opinions are not stupid, you don't need to insult people to express them.
1. Insults are subjective. If you don't see the problem with criminalizing subjective opinions, then I don't know what to tell you.
2. You're literally trying to restrict how I express my legitimate opinions while simultaneously claiming that speech is freer in Europe.
> Me: "Mr Smith was not arrested because he wears a red t-shirt, he was arrested because he acted like an idiot by deciding to expose himself to children in the street". You: "So you are saying that acting like an idiot is a criminal offence".
You've lost the plot. The original point was that people were arrested for criticizing politicians, your rebuttal was that the way they did it was idiotic, which directly implies that you're ok with criminalizing idiocy even when the criticism is legitimate. Your reply here is a complete red herring.
> Academia are highly international and therefore meritocracy based:
This does not follow. Literally.
> This idea that the whole word is so much into the conspiracy that every universities on Earth are covering the left-wing academia conspiracy is so stupid.
It's not a conspiracy when people are just acting in their own best interests. I don't know where you got the idea that it has to be a conspiracy.
> Maybe another reason is that a lot of right-wing political ideas don't make sense when confronted to a rigorous analysis, and therefore the right-wing positions are falling from natural selection.
This is also delusional, and frankly completely ignorant of studies done on exactly this (not only researcher bias, publication bias, hiring bias, and more).
So you agree that the US has more free speech because people can deviate from your completely arbitrarily defined "normal" form of critique.
As for examples, the German criminal code has literally criminalized insulting people (section 185), and insulting politicians has even harsher penalties (section 188). There are hundreds of articles covering cases, just ask any AI for a summary.
> So they were not arrested for criticizing politicians, they were arrested for acting like idiots.
In your opinion, acting like an idiot is a criminal offense, even if it does not harm anyone, in the tort sense?
> Well, first, it cuts both way: left-leaning scientists have a left-leaning bias, and right-leaning scientists have a right-leaning bias. So it cancels out.
And what are the political demographics of academia right now? This is a big reason for the replication crisis in the social sciences.
> politicians who have no idea of the subject who ruin a scientist career because they saw the term "Enola Gay" or "financial equity"".
That isn't really happening. No one's career is being ruined by having to rewrite grant proposals to remove DEI language, because previous policy required DEI language. The restructuring of academic funding and incentives is frankly long overdue. Everyone, including scientists, has been complaining about grant funding and the skewed incentives in academia, like publish or perish. You often have to break a system before it can be fixed.
Maybe you should base this assessment on more than just vibes. Grok came out pretty balanced on independent assessments, where most other models were heavily biased: https://github.com/washingtonpost/political-bias-llm-eval/
Criticizing politicians has gotten people arrested in Europe. This doesn't happen in the US.
> As for work, in US, research grant were removed for using some "woke" keywords for political/ideological reasons. In Europe, grants are decided by the peers, and when a controversial subject is not attributed a grant, it is not for political/ideological reason, it is because the scientific value is considered as poor.
This is naive. You think European scientists are immune to political influence, ideological conformity and fads?
Morality by definition is a set prescriptions that everyone ought to follow.
> this whole "I am so smart I cannot see right and wrong" is a totally transparent, low-IQ, and low-morality schtick.
The problem with this position is that it takes as a given that morality is in some sense trivial where millennia of debate over it has shown that it is in fact, not at all trivial.
Is Grok obviously vocal and active about its politics? Or are you talking about Musk?
> I don't see how political commentary about Musk's is somehow forbidden
Nobody is saying it's forbidden, but this is (or was) a technical site, so presumably one would hope that the main topic of discussion is technical.
I disagree that decoupling "knowing" from "understanding" is well motivated or useful in any way.
> I don't think that it is useful to say that LLMs understand anything they say, or that we say to them.
This is starting to seem like a Chinese Room disagreement, so I'll just say that what that thought experiment demonstrated is that there is no robust or meaningful way to distinguish semantics from syntactic processing given everything we know about reality, and that LLMs were a fantastic demonstration of this illusion, eg. that "semantics" are reducible to a relational network of syntactic elements.