Post Aim2EyIOae3c7FyDyK by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
 (DIR) More posts by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
 (DIR) Post #Ail0Om2sb4VTx5IccK by photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr
       2024-06-09T06:41:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       The conclusions are correct but the argument is very weak. Not having a body is not what distinguishes an LLM-based AI from a sentient entity. Imagine the converse of their argument: if, as a Human, I say something like "I am scratching my wing with a tentacle", does that suddenly rob me of my sentience?https://time.com/collection/time100-voices/6980134/ai-llm-not-sentient/
       
 (DIR) Post #Ail0OnJDtnArs3xBjM by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
       2024-06-09T16:51:05Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @photos_floues Tentacles and wings are body parts, I don't understand your objections based on that. The LLM confusion (delusion (deceit)) is built on the assumption that language equals intelligence. That assertion is trivially dismissible. (Animals, people without speech or unshared language.) In fact I assert bluntly that LLMs prove the opposite -- language does not require intelligence at all. All of our concepts, language or otherwise, are based on metaphors to the body or extend from the body. Im math, what's a "field"? Magnetic field for example. We are a billion years of weird chemistry and selection. We don't know how we work.
       
 (DIR) Post #AilCvzorbblHg3LqwS by photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr
       2024-06-09T19:11:29Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tomjennings the authors say that an LLM does not know what it is talking about when it utters a sentence such as "I am hungry", because it does not have a body, and that somehow makes it not sentient. But one can lie (I could say that I have wings, which I do not and do not experience).Sentience is, as you say, something deeper than producing language.
       
 (DIR) Post #AilQ8VUexzAqnACI2S by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
       2024-06-09T21:39:29Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @photos_floues Right. But "truth" isn't really part of it, or at least not sufficient. I can truly believe something and have it be not true. I can be hungry and lie there I am not. The whole question is fraught, and we can't even state clearly what the question is! Lol.
       
 (DIR) Post #AilTC7oJGG6MMRnyoC by photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr
       2024-06-09T22:13:43Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @tomjennings One of the constant features of AI is the receding horizon of what we consider to be intelligent. People in the 1950s would have been amazed at an AI beating a chess world champion. Now we have essentially beaten the Turing test, which is quite remarkable, but clearly it did not require not real intelligence after all.Even facing an ideal AI (à la HAL9000) there would still be the question of whether mimicking sentience is the same as the real thing, but we are very far from there.
       
 (DIR) Post #AilwQ6DqrMBQA1lfbE by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
       2024-06-10T03:41:13Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @photos_floues It's no accident that facility with language is tied to class and education. Turings article that posited the test as I remember it was a bit of a tease, setting up an environment where through the teletype the interrogator could not tell if he was conversing with a man or a woman. And he specifically discussed errors and lying, and as i recall, "if you can't determine, might as well treat it as it is" intelligent. Or man or woman? Turing was screwing with people here! The paper is worth a modern read. We have language machines DEMONSTRABLY not intelligent but yes they can fool us. The test is inadequate and that's no reflection on Turing. I think that the supposed question, if it mimics is it "really", assumes the existence of an "essence" of intelligence -- an essence of humanity, the essence being of course a soul, planted there by God. Essence is solely religious and pretty much Christian. Umm, essence is bullshit all the way up and down. A pointless distraction.
       
 (DIR) Post #Aim2EyIOae3c7FyDyK by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
       2024-06-10T04:46:27Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @photos_floues I think what's so messy here is that the determination of what is intelligent or not isn't a technical issue, yet it's business and tech folk making the proclamations.