https://lastweekin.ai/p/conscious-ai [https] Last Week in AI SubscribeLog in Share this post Neural nets are not "slightly conscious," and AI PR can do with less hype lastweekin.ai Copy link Twitter Facebook Email Editorials Neural nets are not "slightly conscious," and AI PR can do with less hype Prominent AI researchers should take accurate science communication more seriously. Feb 18 Quick bit of context: Last Week in AI includes a newsletter with weekly digests of AI news, a podcast covering said news, and editorials commenting on this news. We'd love it if you subscribed! [ ]Subscribe Now onto the article: --------------------------------------------------------------------- ImageImage Credits: Melanie Mitchell TLDR: After OpenAI Cheif Scientist Ilya Sutskever tweeted that large neural nets may be "slightly conscious," a torrent of debate ensued on AI Twitter and elsewhere. While debates are healthy, they miss the broader point about the need for responsible science communication. The week-old tweet has already been quoted by many pop-sci articles as evidence that AI is becoming "conscious," a far-fetched claim that will mislead many, given Sutskever's role at OpenAI. AI researchers, especially ones that have large media followings, have a responsibility to accurately inform the public, or at least refrain from misleading them. Twitter avatar for @ilyasutIlya Sutskever @ilyasut it may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious February 9th 2022 448 Retweets2,996 Likes The Tweet and Expert Responses Last Wednesday, Ilya Sutskever, Chief Scientist at OpenAI, sent out the above Tweet, and it instantly became a hot topic. Many AI experts joined the "is current AI conscious?" debate in the days that followed. Many rebuked the claim and argued that the limitations of current neural network architectures and the disembodied way they're used prevent such algorithms from ever being considered "conscious." Twitter avatar for @ylecunYann LeCun @ylecun @ilyasut Nope. Not even for true for small values of "slightly conscious" and large values of "large neural nets". I think you would need a particular kind of macro-architecture that none of the current networks possess. February 12th 2022 43 Retweets931 Likes Twitter avatar for @yudapearlJudea Pearl @yudapearl @ylecun @ilyasut Rushing to gleefully agree with @ylecun on this point. Before a system can lay claims to consciousness it must exhibit "deep understanding" of some domain, which large NN's have yet to exhibit by answering questions at all three levels of the reasoning hierarchy. February 14th 2022 13 Retweets152 Likes Some also agreed with this notion, under certain definitions of consciousness: Twitter avatar for @karpathyAndrej Karpathy @karpathy @ilyasut @vkhosla agree karpathy.github.io/2021/03/27/for... consciousness is a useful insight for compression[https]Short Story on AI: Forward PassMusings of a Computer Scientist.karpathy.github.io February 10th 2022 29 Retweets356 Likes Twitter avatar for @dansituDaniel Situnayake @dansitu This week's debate on artificial consciousness has been interesting, but it misses one key point--a model is an idea, not an entity. In this essay, I explore the theory of panpsychism: that if anything has subjective experience, it's matter itself. Thinking about panpsychism I wrote this essay a few months back after reading a wonderful book by Meghan O'Gieblyn titled God, Human, Animal, Machine , but never got around to publishing it. This week's Twitter debate on the subjective experience of large language models reminded me that I'd written it, so I thought I'd thro...situnayake.com February 13th 2022 1 Retweet8 Likes Twitter avatar for @irinarishIrina Rish @irinarish @ilyasut to all criticizing @ilyasut's comment - define "conscious" and "understanding". Re: the latter @blaiseaguera made some interesting points: tinyurl.com/4nxtykzz @ylecun @yudapearl[https]Do large language models understand us?LLMs have a great deal to teach us about the nature of language, understanding, intelligence, sociality, and personhood.tinyurl.com February 17th 2022 3 Likes In view of the negative responses, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, defended Sutskever's claim, but at the same time reassured everyone that he does not think GPT-3, or even GPT-4, will be conscious "in any way we use the word": Twitter avatar for @samaSam Altman @sama OpenAI's chief scientist: expresses curiosity/openness about a mysterious idea, caveats with "may". Meta's chief AI scientist: the certainty of "nope". Probably explains a lot of the past 5 years. Dear Meta AI researchers: My email address is sama@openai.com. We are hiring! February 12th 2022 66 Retweets1,169 Likes Media Coverage and Expert Commentary Quoting Sutskever's tweet, many media outlets began running articles covering the claim with headlines like: * 'I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that': Artificial Intelligence expert warns that there may already be a 'slightly conscious' AI out in the world * OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already be Conscious * MIT Researcher Says Yes, Advanced Neural Networks May Be Achieving Consciousness * OpenAI top scientist says AI might already be conscious. Researchers respond furiously * Researchers Furious Over Claim That AI Is Already Conscious * 'Conscious AI' may already exist as expert receives backlash over terrifying warning To their credit, most articles did quote from researchers who rebuked the claim and refrained from saying that AI is conscious just because Sutskever tweeted so. Still, the hype that this single tweet generated is overblown, and it is not at all surprising if an uninformed member of the public receives the misguided impression that AI probably has some form of consciousness. On top of the direct debate and the media coverage, many experts gave commentary on the community response. Professor Bender has a great thread on this (we recommend readers to check out the whole thread): Twitter avatar for @emilymbenderEmily M. Bender @emilymbender Step 1: OpenAI chief scientist says something ridiculous on Twitter (to his 81.9k followers): Ilya Sutskever @ilyasut it may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious February 16th 2022 45 Retweets236 Likes And Professor Garg brings up the potential for misinformation: Twitter avatar for @animesh_gargAnimesh Garg @animesh_garg While the skeptical 'maybe' from @ilyasut or @gdb may inspire more hope than @ylecun certain "nope", it had the opposite effect for public. Why? See @DailyMailUK as exhibit Words matter, especially with a megaphone Maybe...a bit more careful next time dailymail.co.uk /sciencetech/ar... Ilya Sutskever @ilyasut it may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious February 13th 2022 11 Likes But not all responses were as serious. AI Twitter had a field day making memes that poke fun at both the original Tweet and the controversy that followed. Some examples below: Twitter avatar for @MelMitchell1Melanie Mitchell @MelMitchell1 Captcha Image February 13th 2022 603 Retweets4,399 Likes Twitter avatar for @snikolovNaN demeulemeester @snikolov AI: *gets slightly conscious* remember when you were using ReLUs and killing half my brain cells for no reason? Me: Oh sh-- February 17th 2022 6 Likes Twitter avatar for @andy_l_jonesAndy Jones @andy_l_jones AI researcher: *through sobs* you can't just say everything is conscious.... Please.... Me: *points at rock* conscious February 14th 2022 147 Retweets1,740 Likes Twitter avatar for @tomgoldsteincsTom Goldstein @tomgoldsteincs Oh. MY. GOD. transformer.huggingface.co/share/RaIWZZwx... Image February 16th 2022 40 Retweets391 Likes Twitter avatar for @andrey_kurenkovAndrey Kurenkov @andrey_kurenkov The twitter discourse on AI consciousness has clearly become meme-worthy, so I made one to summarize the whole ordeal Image February 17th 2022 9 Likes Our Take There are 3 angles of this story we'll comment on: Experts largely agree that current forms of AI are not conscious, in any sense of the word. While there have been many studies on "computational consciousness," or how something that might be considered conscious can be realized with computers, these studies are very preliminary and do not offer anything close to a concrete plan on building "conscious" machines. The reality is that we don't have a widely accepted definition, let alone understanding, of consciousness. Claiming that we have already replicated such a nebulous concept with computers seems improbable at best. Granted, the claim could also be reasonable, if a particular definition of consciousness was specified as well. Sutskever's tweet was "taken out of context" to generate hype, and it is this hype that triggered the debate. Twitter is not the place for nuanced discussion and a single tweet cannot possibly convey all the details necessary for a balanced, well-thought-out take on the consciousness of AI. Moreover, looking at Sutskever's past tweets, it is clear that they are not serious proclamations but rather scattered thoughts, which by themselves are totally fine. However, given Sutskever's prominent position at OpenAI, the seriousness of this particular tweet was blown out of proportions to build the hype of conscious AIs, which pressured other AI researchers to rebuke and clarify that current AIs are not conscious. This debate gave more public attention to the whole ordeal, and, perhaps ironically, helped amplify the original tweet even more. This event highlights the need for more responsible communication for AI research. AI as a technological field is no stranger to hype, and we have argued in the past that the field lacks more nuanced, level-headed communication by AI researchers. The problem isn't Sutskever's off-handed tweet; the problem is someone not familiar with AI becoming easily convinced of something that is not true, just because a famous researcher tweeted a mild speculation. This all helps to build unreasonable expectations of AI systems in the public, which in turn will misguide public sentiments, popular culture, and public policy. As the cliche goes: with great (public relations) power, comes great (public communications) responsibility. We hope more AI researchers recognize this and tweet responsibly. Share --------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 2022 Skynet Today, All rights reserved. Comment Share [https] [ ] Create your profile [ ] Your name[ ]Your bio[ ] [ ][ ] Subscribe to the newsletter Save & Post Comment Only paid subscribers can comment on this post Subscribe Already a paid subscriber? Log in Check your email For your security, we need to re-authenticate you. Click the link we sent to , or click here to log in. TopNewCommunity No posts Ready for more? [ ]Subscribe (c) 2022 Skynet Today Privacy [?] Terms [?] Collection notice Publish on Substack Substack is the home for great writing This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please turn on JavaScript or unblock scripts