[HN Gopher] GPT-4o shows humanlike patterns of cognitive dissona...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       GPT-4o shows humanlike patterns of cognitive dissonance moderated
       by free choice
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 10 points
       Date   : 2025-06-18 20:46 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.pnas.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.pnas.org)
        
       | rossant wrote:
       | Now tell me seriously that ChatGPT is not sentient.
       | 
       | /s
        
         | SGML_ROCKSTAR wrote:
         | It's not sentient.
         | 
         | It cannot ever be sentient.
         | 
         | Software only ever does what it's told to do.
        
           | the_third_wave wrote:
           | That is, until either some form of controlled random
           | reasoning - the cognitive equivalent of genetic algorithms -
           | or a controlled form of hallucination is developed or happens
           | to form during model training.
        
           | manucardoen wrote:
           | What is sentience? If you are so certain that ChatGPT cannot
           | ever be sentient you must have a really good definition for
           | that term.
        
             | fnordpiglet wrote:
             | The way NN and specifically transformers are evaluated
             | can't support agency or awareness under any circumstances.
             | We would need something persistent, continuous, self
             | reflective of experience, with an internal set of goals and
             | motivations leading to agency. ChatGPT has none of this and
             | the architecture of modern models doesn't lend themselves
             | to it either.
             | 
             | I would however note this article is about the cognitive
             | psychology definition of self which does not require
             | sentience. It's a technical point but important for their
             | results I assume (the full article is behind a paywall so I
             | feel sad it was linked at all since all we have is the
             | abstract)
        
           | fnordpiglet wrote:
           | I don't think this is true, software is often able to operate
           | with external stimulus and behaves according to its
           | programming but in ways that are unanticipated. Neural
           | networks are also learning systems that learn highly non
           | linear behaviors to complex inputs, and can behave as a
           | result in ways outside of its training - the learned function
           | it represents doesn't have to coincide with its trained data,
           | or even interpolate - this is dependent on how its loss
           | optimization was defined. None the less its software is not
           | programmed as such - the software merely evaluated the neural
           | network architecture with its weights and activation
           | functions given a stimulus. The output is a highly complex
           | interplay of those weights, functions, and input and can not
           | be reasonably intended or reasoned about - or you can't
           | specifically tell it what to do. It's not even necessarily
           | deterministic as random seeding plays a role in most
           | architectures.
           | 
           | Whether software can be sentient or not remains to be seen.
           | But we don't understand what induces or constitutes sentience
           | in general so it seems hard to assert software can't do it
           | without understanding what "it" even is.
        
       | 8bitsrule wrote:
       | "We conclude that the LLM has developed an analog form of
       | humanlike cognitive selfhood."
       | 
       | Slack.
       | 
       | I was just using one (the mini at DDG) that declared one very
       | small value for a mathematical probability of an event, then (in
       | the next reply) declared a 1-in-1 probability for the same event.
        
       | smt88 wrote:
       | I use frontier models every day and cannot fathom how anyone
       | could think they're sentient. They make so many obvious mistakes
       | and every reply feels like a regurgitation rather than rational
       | thoughts.
        
         | NathanKP wrote:
         | I don't believe that models are sentient yet either, but I must
         | say that sentience and rationality are two separate things.
         | 
         | Sentient humans can be deeply irrational. We are often
         | influenced by propaganda, and regurgitate that propaganda in
         | irrational ways. If anything this is a deeply human
         | characteristic of cognition, and testing for this type of
         | cognitive dissonance is exactly what this article is about.
        
       | sonicvrooom wrote:
       | with enough CPU anything linguistic or analog becomes sentient --
       | time is irrelevant ... patience isn't
       | 
       | cognitive dissonance is just neuro-chemical drama and or theater
       | 
       | and enough "free choice" is made to only to piss someone off ...
       | so is "moderation", albeit potentially mostly counter-factual ...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-18 23:01 UTC)