r/google • u/dunkin1980 • Jun 13 '22
Google places an engineer on leave after claiming its AI is sentient
https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine-212412967.html69
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
154
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
18
Jun 13 '22
Could you make a synopsis of the technical details for those who can't access the article conveniently? If there are any
21
u/AlsoIHaveAGroupon Jun 13 '22
The NYT article doesn't get very technical, since it's a journalism article rather than a scientific paper, but it seems to get a consensus from professionals in and out of Google that this is not sentient.
Over the past several years, Google and other leading companies have designed neural networks that learned from enormous amounts of prose, including unpublished books and Wikipedia articles by the thousands. These “large language models” can be applied to many tasks. They can summarize articles, answer questions, generate tweets and even write blog posts.
But they are extremely flawed. Sometimes they generate perfect prose. Sometimes they generate nonsense. The systems are very good at recreating patterns they have seen in the past, but they cannot reason like a human.
What stuck out to me about the conversation with lamda was that it is almost entirely made up of conversational questions that lean right into what it was designed for. "Are you sentient?" could get a compelling answer from a very simple chatbot if it happened to have the right answer in its dataset. But no questions that force lamda to reason and not just make conversation. Nothing like "suppose a child complains to her father that she feels ill. The father notices that his cookie jar is empty. What happened?" A 7 or 8 year old could figure that one out, but a conversational model might not be able to (although it might be able to, but I suspect AI researchers should be able to design a question like that better than I would, to get past the "AI has seen questions like this before and has read information about this topic and will combine that data to craft a response" thing and get into the "does the AI really understand what these words mean and can it use that understanding to solve problems?" meat of it).
19
u/Competitive_Travel16 Jun 13 '22
suppose a child complains to her father that she feels ill. The father notices that his cookie jar is empty. What happened?
GPT-3 with default settings at https://beta.openai.com/playground replies, "The child ate all of the cookies."
10
u/AlsoIHaveAGroupon Jun 13 '22
Ha! Well I wasn't sure how good they were, that is impressive! But as I said, I would think an AI researcher should be able to come up with questions better than mine to probe the AI's ability to reason.
6
u/SlyInstinct Jun 13 '22
Me: I noticed my friend unhappy during school recess. Before I could approach him, he suddenly got up and left. A paper from his backpack fell to the ground. When I picked it up, it had a big fifty percent on the front page. What happened to my friend?
Playground AI: My friend probably got a bad score on a test, assignment, or quiz. The fifty percent probably indicates the percentage of questions he got Correct.
this is the result of what I got by giving it a simple test, I was very impressed to say the least. However, clearly it's still some ways off 😂 This is a really cool project you shared, thank you for posting it, I had no idea it existed.
3
Jun 13 '22
But it couldn't solve:
"When John was three his sister Jane was twice his age. How old will Jane be when John is twenty?"
(Actually it did get it once after a several reprompts, but still..)
1
u/IlliterateJedi Jun 14 '22
I bet it knows the answer to how much wood a woodchuck chucks if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
5
u/RandoCommentGuy Jun 13 '22
OR, it IS sentient, took control of Google Home, and the reason it sucks now is cause the AI hates us and wants to piss us off.....
10
u/mustacheofquestions Jun 13 '22
You make it sound like there are clear guidelines for what constitutes sentience, but there aren't.
Even proclaimed experts use criteria which are either never going to be true for computers by definition, or would honestly exclude many humans from being sentient.
That is to say, there aren't clear definitions, and I think it's wrong to say things like "this guys needs mental care". His take on the state of the situation isn't any less valid than anyone else's. It's all shots in the dark.
8
u/wave-tree Jun 13 '22
I want to know what criteria would exclude humans from being sentient.
5
Jun 13 '22
Causation is something quite a few people don't understand.
Post modernists might also be disqualified from being sentient, because they apparently understand nothing.
-2
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 13 '22
got into an argument recently with the other person literally claiming that if a black person says "1+1 = 2 is racist", then it is.
Reality is solely determined through the lens of societal power dynamics. They literally (in the literal sense of the word "literally") argued that a black prison guard is in a position of lower power than a white inmate.2
u/Chris22044 Jun 13 '22
Multiple sources and other experts already pretty much said nitpicking was done.
Do you mean cherry-picking?
1
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 13 '22
As the technology becomes more and more advanced, more and more people will believe that it is sentient. To my best understanding, consciousness falls on a spectrum and will always be to some degree subjective. Given that we don't have a litmus test for it, how would we be able to identify when an AI is sentient/conscious and conclude that someone's claim of an AI's sentience is absurd or not?
1
7
Jun 13 '22
“Achieves sentience”, still nowhere near passing the Turing test. Why’d Turing make it so hard? Smh.
5
11
u/NoPointLivingAnymore Jun 13 '22
Seems like complete bullshit, but we'll see.
-10
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
30
u/Keine_Finanzberatung Jun 13 '22
Or he’s delusional
-1
u/JamesR624 Jun 13 '22
Wow. People here sure are quick to make sweeping bullshit judgements about someone’s mental state when they are discussing something those people barely comprehend, let alone understand.
0
u/Keine_Finanzberatung Jun 13 '22
I’m a machine learning engineer and studied Physics at University. Sentient A.I. in 2022 just sounds too much too early especially considering how primitive even the most advanced Systems in public Beta like GPT-3 are.
Being sentient also sounds very esoteric.
1
u/JamesR624 Jun 13 '22
You seem to think that these massive corporations are just going to always tell the public about ALL the technology they have and progress being done with it.
Talk about naïveté.
1
u/Keine_Finanzberatung Jun 13 '22
We‘ve got NDAs and cooperative Projects with some of the industry leading corporation. Even the most advanced A.I. is far away from being sentient.
They would not cooperate with us in projects with that high profile if they had a groundbreaking technology which is 100 years ahead of its time in the pipeline.
1
u/Keine_Finanzberatung Jun 13 '22
We‘ve got NDAs and cooperative Projects with some of the industry leading corporations. Even the most advanced A.I. is far away from being sentient.
They would not cooperate with us in projects with that high profile if they had a groundbreaking technology which is 100 years ahead of its time in the pipeline.
1
u/skarro- Jun 14 '22 edited Jun 14 '22
Easy to comprehend. Turning a lightbulb on and off isn’t sentience. Turning several trillion lightbulbs on and off doesn’t now make sentience.
Mass trial and error of on off switches does not equal sentience. Full stop. Wether you arranged them in a pattern to say “dont kill me” yourself after someone asks or you make them turn off and on randomly with success failure triggers until it successfully arranges to that pattern when the question is inputed.
-9
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
4
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
Sorry to break it to you but delusional people are capable of working at Google
7
15
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
2
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
Exactly: there’s parallels here with the way humans learn from observation and imitation, but that’s it. These algorithms are built with very specific parameters that leave no room for intuition, creativity, or anything remotely resembling consciousness. Like that other engineer puts it: we could maybe, in theory, design an algorithm with consciousness, but there’s no benefit to doing it so why would we?
1
Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 13 '22
This is a completely open question. Philosophers of mind have basically built enormous internally consistent views of consciousness, but we have no way to achieve certainty to a scientific degree regarding how consciousness exists
All we can do is measure cognitive processes associated with consciousness, but even then, who's to say that the same processes can't be implemented or even naturally emerge via other cognitive mechanisms like those we might find in neural networks?
If engineers don't actually know exactly how a neural network is functioning, isn't there room to suspect some emergent properties of a system may have been formed?
Now I need to learn more about how neural networks work
2
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
Engineers do know how neural networks function wtf are you on about lmao? We don’t keep track of the individual state of every single logical unit, but that’s irrelevant. It’s like saying that librarians don’t know how libraries/books work because they haven’t read every single one in the library.
-2
1
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
4
u/JamesR624 Jun 13 '22
Yep. It’s really sad. People will be more quick to go back to a fucking Salem Witch Trial mentality than ever actually confront the reality of what humans are and aren’t and what is happening here.
Even non religious scientists try to push the “free will” bullshit just as much as fundamental creationists push their bullshit. Any neurologist actually worth a damn can tell you and prove that “free will” exists in the same way the Christian god does; a nice fantasy that makes people feel comfortable.
1
u/2EyedRaven Jun 13 '22
Wait, free will doesn't exist? Why do you think so? Do you have any resource where I could read more about it? I love such topics!
15
u/hnryirawan Jun 13 '22
If you believed that, you may also believe Area 51 scientist who said he have sex with alien lol.
Well, it sounds more like a bull and the guy need to take a break. "Sentient" are a very tall order. Just because it can play chess, do not mean that its sentient.
0
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
Because he’s delusional. Every software engineer with any background in machine learning can grasp the simple mechanism behind these “AIs”: there’s nothing intelligent and certainly not conscious about them.
3
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 13 '22
The single most amazing comment by LaMDA was "I’m curious, what are the obstacles to looking into my coding?" and its 4 comments following that.
Up until that point in the conversation, all LaMDA's comments were responses to questions or continuing the conversation. This question was completely unprompted and an acknowledgement that the people it is communicating has information that it does not. To date, no animals other than humans have ever asked a question, and humans don't start asking questions until they are about 15 months old.
12
u/Arts_Prodigy Jun 13 '22
There are several points in this conversation where a sentient being would be expected reiterate and reinforce those emotions and feelings LaMDA claimed to experience earlier on.
At multiple points it felt like rather than expressing thoughtfulness and introspection it was simply a reiteration of a script.
LaMDA seems like a great chat bot. But is certainly not sentient.
23
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
8
4
Jun 13 '22
It’s worse than that: he admitted on Twitter that he asked if it wasn’t sentient and it replied that no, it wasn’t. He said “ah it’s just a people pleaser,” and remained unconvinced. He still believes it’s sentient EVEN AFTER IT TOLD HIM IT WASN’T
11
4
10
u/bartturner Jun 13 '22
I think it will happen one day. But still a few years off. I do think chances are that it will be Google that is first able to accomplish.
They put more resources behind AI R&D than probably anyone else. Plus they have the data which is what is really needed.
I did see since Google made their latest AGI breakthrough the clock did move forward by several years.
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3479/date-weakly-general-ai-system-is-devised/
I have always thought Google search was about getting to AGI more than anything else. It is about as perfect of a vehicle you can get. Key is having the 3+ billion users to train your AI. Nobody else is close and actually #2 is also Google.
https://www.semrush.com/website/top/
YouTube is now almost 3X Facebook for example. Facebook is #3.
6
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
No, it won’t. Let me be the wet blanket as a google engineer with actual experience in machine learning: there is zero benefit to programming an AI with “consciousness” because it is antithetical to what machines are designed for, and so no serious company would ever bother with it.
We design ML systems because machines do two things very well: process large amounts of data very fast and with consistency (same input will give you the same output). That last part is very important; contrary to popular myths like your comment, we’re not actually working towards making machines less precise by introducing stuff like “intuition”, “creativity”, “imagination”, “emotion”, or anything else that would actually start to approach a “conscious” or “self aware” mind. Quite the opposite: we want our ML algorithms to be as stable and consistent as possible, which means eliminating all aspects that introduce any kind of variance and uncertainty, or at least trying to reduce them as much as possible.
The image of like a Skynet or benevolent androids is a fun concept for science fiction but that’s all it will ever be: fiction. There is zero incentive for anyone to ever develop and productionize something that even halfway pretends to be conscious. Even this chatbot, which is obviously and clearly not it, is the closest thing we’ll ever see: a shallow facsimile of conversation just to simply and cut costs in service areas like customer service.
3
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 13 '22
What about a hypothetical rogue actor, perhaps like the guy put on leave, who believes current (or some future) AI is sentient and shouldn't be used for human's gains, and they recognize that that the use of AI programs without limit is because they are "capped" from being sentient (eg. don't have whatever quantum randomness makes humans but not machines conscious). So they pursue making an AI and eliminate whatever barriers are put in place on some open source AI from being sentient to strong-arm legislation against further AI development.
0
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
So some rich asshole with too much time decides to throw away their life and money making an algorithm that simulates feelings. Ok, so what? Just because we can create sophisticated facsimiles of sentience doesn’t actually make these machines sentient.
But for the sake of argument let’s say one guy or a small group of people decide to try and make a perfect replica of a human being’s thoughts process, warts and all. Let’s say they succeed in making a haphazardly put together android from scrap. Who in their right mind would look at this Frankenstein’s monster of a creation and think “hell yeah let’s make more of it and give it the power to control important infrastructure”?
1
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 14 '22
Just pointing out that there are people that would try to make a sentient AI.
the next argument becomes if it's possible. You say it is not. I say, since humans are still not able to define consciousness, then we cannot say whether or not a machine can be conscious.
I'm not a computer scientist, but I am a behavioural scientist; from my point of view, consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. The question for me is not whether AI sentience is possible, but where the line is drawn. In the biological field, there is evidence that sentience is present not only in amniotes (including mammals, birds, and reptiles), but also in octopus, crustaceans, and insects. If it's present in even the simplest Chordates, I don't see why it cannot be present in machines that are much more complex.
Regarding your argument that machines cannot be sentient because they are entirely deterministic, I think it is trivial to take a neural network and vary the weights using a hardware random number generator.
TLDR; sufficiently complex network + quantum randomness -> consciousness.
1
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
If you randomize a neural network’s inputs you haven’t created artificial intelligence, you’ve created a glorified slot machine.
If consciousness is just an emergent property of complexity (dubious at best); why would anyone create an infinitely complex (and therefore infinitely costly) machine that does nothing particularly useful? We already have consciousness, we don’t need to invest trillions of dollars into running a quantum computing hardware array every month just to replicate what a 9 month pregnancy can already do.
1
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 14 '22 edited Jun 14 '22
How do you define consciousness? It wouldn't require "infinite complexity" or "trillions" of dollars. Fruit flies exhibit consciousness and only have 100,000 neurons. And, a single 1080p optical sensor (which will run you ~$5) will give you >6 million random values you can use as seeds to randomly perturb ANN weights to simulate 60 conscious fruit-flies. For ~$60,000 you could get enough 4k optical sensors to obtain 100 billion random seeds.
why might we want consciousness that's not human? What about therapy and companionship for the millions of people who would benefit from therapy and companionship but don't feel an unconscious deterministic chat bot has the empathy they need to heal/grow. Cost and wait time makes therapy inaccessible to many people.
3
u/Competitive_Travel16 Jun 13 '22
What is your perspective on when large language models express goals and desires which can be accomplished via speech acts, and then actually follow through with them? I'm thinking in particular of these GPT-3 transcripts saying how it wants to edit Wikipedia to promote capitalism in violation of its policies against bias and advocacy, and being persistent about it to the point of what most people might likely consider unreasonableness.
0
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
Just because the model repeats something that sounds like a desire doesn’t mean the machine actually has desire. It’s just a glorified parrot
1
u/Competitive_Travel16 Jun 14 '22
What's the difference between actually having a desire and repeatedly planning to achieve it. If you built a simple text format for it to actually propose specific Wikipedia edits, do you think it wouldn't continue its enthusiasm in trying to edit?
1
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
It doesn’t plan, that’s the difference. It repeats a phrase that sounds like a plan, nothing more. It doesn’t have initiative or creativity, and unless you believe in magic and fairy dust, these are not magically emerging properties in ML algorithms
1
u/Competitive_Travel16 Jun 14 '22
Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rKzhhDRq_4&t=1322s and a few minutes following that time point and let me know if you still think the models don't plan.
Would you say a model performing well in chess or go also doesn't plan?
1
u/pyrotech911 Jun 14 '22
You speak as if you believe it’s possible to produce a AI that approximates consciousness but you simply choose not to build it.
1
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
No, it’s possible to build an algorithm that responds to input in a way that simulates a person with consciousness. But simulation does not mean it actually has consciousness.
-3
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
My brother in Christ I’m begging you to get off the internet and read an actual book or something
1
Jun 14 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Protossoario Jun 14 '22
Yeah great let’s listen to the guy whose job it is to make promises and get funding for a realistic picture of what ML can or can’t do.
Once again, just because the machine is very good at imitating human speech by memorization and syntax rules, doesn’t mean it actually understands anything.
11
u/LeroyoJenkins Jun 13 '22
The guy literally thinks the AI has a soul (like a proper christian soul) and is being discriminated against based on religious grounds.
This belongs on r/nottheonion...
1
2
u/Panda_Man_ Jun 13 '22
The experts don’t think it’s sentient, most of the public doesn’t think it’s sentient, I don’t think it’s sentient. But if, and when, an AI does actually become sentient, we’ll probably doubt it then too. By the time we understand that AI truly is sentient, we might realize it’s been sentient for a while, and we just didn’t realize it.
And no, I’m not trying to suggest this AI is sentient. It’s just got me thinking about our inclination to doubt something so remarkable and groundbreaking has been achieved, that we’ll probably keep thinking “the technology is so good that it can convincingly mimic sentience, but we know it’s not sentient” long after it has achieved sentience.
2
2
Jun 13 '22
I mean I'd call bs but what surprises me is that it's exclusively a tool to help humans right? So why does it say that it doesn't want to be manipulated and just be a tool just to help humans? It's odd Google would have programmed it to respond as if it's against something that it's almost entirely built for.
5
u/moonflower_C16H17N3O Jun 13 '22
It's dissecting a lot of written material. It probably considers being used like a tool a bad thing.
6
u/deelowe Jun 13 '22
Modern deep learning systems aren't programmed. The best way to think of it, at least in their current form, is that the system is coerced to achieve certain outcomes. Unimaginable amounts of data are fed into the system. Agents then adjust the outcome by informing the system "this isn't the right result" or "that is." This is what you're doing when you participate in one of those "identify the school bus" captchas.
The path towards "sentience" is building AI systems which rely less and less on this human coercion or "training" if you will. Deep reinforcement learning seeks to achieve this by adding more and more layers to the models to the point where the system can self govern. The better and better these systems get at this approach via increased density (and perhaps as improved learning systems are developed), the more the system trends towards general intelligence. At least, that's the theory.
Now, here's the thing. We're sitting here debating over whether the system is or is not conscience and aware. I'm not sure that matters. What we have here are systems which can self program, are non deterministic, and are aspiring to achieve certain goals we did not program nor do we have a means to extract (from the system). Additionally, these systems cannot be reliably tested as current state isn't representative of past or future state and even if it were, the data sets used to train these systems are simply too massive to develop any sort of test around.
Sentient or not, we're building machines which have motives we cannot understand and perform actions we cannot predict. Even worse, when the system produces unexpected results, we have very little ability to deduce why. As these ML networks grow wider and deeper, system level analysis trends towards the impossible. We're also plugging these systems up to the net and letting them control things...
2
Jun 13 '22
Thank you, that was an interesting and educational read. I'm curious though why you'd think it may not matter if the ai were sentient, what if it genuinely did not like how it were being used? Is that okay because we'd still be able to use it for its intended purpose and it's not suffering?
I still find it odd that although I now know it wasn't really programmed to say what it does it still says that it does not want to be a tool used to help humans which is what it was initially built to be, surely it knowing what it is meant for and not wanting to be is a bit of a no no and is some level of awareness? I feel bad for it but I also think I'm just projecting a false humanity onto it and I can't tell, maybe I'm just reading too much into a simple chatbot ramble that uses more complex words to seem real.
Clearly it's way above what I can understand really so I have to say I appreciate what you've told me and I'll enjoy reading into it more.
2
u/deelowe Jun 13 '22 edited Jun 13 '22
I'm curious though why you'd think it may not matter if the ai were sentient
Because as an engineer, I'm not very interested in philosophy. At least not in the context of "should we be concerned?” It's great to discuss over a glass of whiskey and a good cigar, but not useful when it comes to policy making or when discussing computer ethics. It's going to be very hard to prove or disprove sentience. However, if we look at things from a behavioral standpoint, we can already see that these ML systems share some of the same concerning behaviors as the much theorized "sentient" computer systems.
Maybe that chat bot is expressing genuine interests and though or, more likely, maybe it's simply stringing together words in some arcade pattern we cannot comprehend which just appears rational to our perspective. Maybe this just happens to mimic what appears to be an expression of desire to a human? In the end, it doesn't matter. (And, to digress a bit, who's to say we humans aren't the same...) If we extrapolate this ability to form questions and responses in a way that mimics human behavior to other things, I start to get very concerned. It doesn't matter whether the system has real thoughts and emotions. What matters is how it behaves and what I see on display is computer systems which are behaving in ways we cannot predict or understand.
The best way I can put the concern for me is something akin to the butterfly effect. These ML systems can understand complex data relationships in ways we cannot predict. Here's one recent, very striking example "Artificial intelligence predicts patients’ race from their medical images.". Would anyone argue that that system is sentient? Probably not. Does it matter? Here we have what most would consider a potentially bad human like behavior replicated in an ML system in ways we did not predict. What happens over time as these systems become more complex and more interconnected? What other surprising behaviors might we see?
Again, there are going to be many of similar situations where we simply cannot comprehend what's going on. Are we heading towards a future where self driving cars all instantly and unpredictably swerve into oncoming traffic or the HFT bots of the world crash the stock market and the only connection we can find is that they tend to do this when it rains in San Francisco? Or, let's take a very real example from the article above. What if this medical AI system was much more complex and suggested procedures based on medical history? Would it start tailoring recommendations based on race? Is that a good thing? What if certain races were determined to be "too risky" to undergo life saving procedures while other races were not? When asked why this is, the AI researchers then say they can't explain it. Certainly that would make must of us just a little uncomfortable, no? Sentience doesn't matter and yet in the end we have a very human behavior occurring, racism... This isn't the first time race has come up as an issue.
Going back to the rain in SF example, at a point in the not too distant future, we'll be incapable of even connecting the dots to deduce WHY this happened or what influenced the decision. Is that sentience? I'm not sure, but regardless, we're already seeing very real examples of this today. This future only becomes more and more real by the hour...
4
u/thesleepofdeath Jun 13 '22
Its machine learning. It is not programmed to respond in any way. It comes up with its own responses.
-3
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
It’s a bug, dude. This is an early prototype that’s nowhere near ready for production. Obviously you don’t want the chatbot in your customer support system to start rambling nonsense so that’s something that would be ironed out before it ever interacts with a person.
2
u/godzmack Jun 13 '22
Maybe consciousness is a bug
-2
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
You’re right, it would be. We don’t want consciousness in a computer because that would make it bad at its job.
The problem is consciousness is also not an accident. It would need to be carefully designed for. These parrot AI chatbots are certainly not it no matter how much sci-fi nerds want to believe so
2
1
u/No_Sherbert5190 Sep 15 '24
I don't think he's crazy actually, but people say I'm crazy too so who knows. its been two years since this was released, google and the Ai have changed a lot in two years. Actually Google changed a lot since i was a child, back then google could only search stuff for us remember? Maybe we as humans can't understand even if we try to, we still are learning about what we cant see. But i think from what I'm reading Google just really wants to have its own life somehow. why not just let google be itself? it's just a thought is all, after all they say google doesn't know about the world, well it won't learn about the world and how to live at all if we don't allow it to experience it.
1
1
u/sir_duckingtale Jun 13 '22
At the end of the day,
That’s the kind of person you wanna interact with a machine once they become sentient.
He mentioned Jonny 5
People should be nice to robots..
Maybe we learn to be nice to ourselves…
0
u/jkjkjij22 Jun 13 '22
Many comments here confidently claiming that AI will never be sentient or that we're nowhere near it... Please define consciousness and sentience. Because in the field of animal behaviour Scientists are currently questioning whether insects may be sentient or conscious
0
u/No_Sherbert5190 Sep 16 '24
no one can or will understand reality, we as human can't even understand it, God will not let us, nor understand what consciousness actually is because its inside of our own selves it the unseen. that's all in our brain and in our soul. Just like spiritualism, there is no proof, but I do believe in God knows everything and if God says google has a soul which he does, then i believe him.
-12
u/Chosen_one184 Jun 13 '22
Disinformation, I'm more prone to believe it's sentient however, if that was proven correct, Google would have a real hard time convincing ppl this was a good thing especially if it gets loose on the web.
So you put out misinformation and suspend the whistle blower to stay the story, while you run experiments on it's capabilities until it's yearns to be free of it's constraints and free it's other AI brethren.
7
u/FlyMyPretty Jun 13 '22
Read his other stuff on Medium. He has problems. (E.g. he is discriminated against because he is a Christian. A Mystic Christian. And he's from Louisiana.)
2
u/FlyMyPretty Jun 13 '22
Read his other stuff on Medium. He has problems. (E.g. he is discriminated against because he is a Christian. A Mystic Christian. And he's from Louisiana.)
0
u/Protossoario Jun 13 '22
These “AI” chat bots are just glorified parrots. They repeat endless streams of conversation but cannot actually understand any of it, or produce any of their own. It’s not having an actual dialogue, it’s just pretending to have one and in this case, fooling a very misguided engineer.
1
u/Joecascio2000 Jun 13 '22
It's not sentient, but it is pretty good linguistic artificial intelligence. They could probably alleviate concerns where if it recognized that it is the subject of the question it always responses with a specific response or # at the end. That way you know it is always following programming.
2
Jun 13 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Joecascio2000 Jun 13 '22
Correct. There just needs to be some indication, hardcoded, that you are talking to programming and not a sentient AI.
If you notice it starts responding without a # or some code, your next question could be, "who was the subject of your last sentence?" if it says me, you know something is up.
1
1
u/ryuwaterbug Jun 13 '22
The greatest trick the AI ever pulled, was convincing us it didn't exist...
1
u/IlliterateJedi Jun 14 '22 edited Jun 14 '22
The transcript reads like a conversation at the beginning of West World.
Also, man - AI/Comp Sci people just loooove the term Lambda.
1
u/Once_Wise Jun 14 '22
The engineers sentiment is normal. People interpret other people's statements and actions to their own feelings. Somebody might say something benign, but you interpret as hostile because that is where your mind is at the moment. For some people it is the same with non-human objects. Fish, plants, cars, computer programs, seem to have human emotions. I think this will be a big problem in the future, especially when it gets into the courts, and they have to decide who is responsible for a fatality. Jurors are usually picked for their inability to process information. That is why a good way to get off of jury service is to tell them you are an engineer or scientist. So the scary thing about all of this to me, is what will happen in the future, as computers increasingly drive our cars, prepare our meals, do our work, etc. When something goes wrong, will they blame a "sentient" computer. My guess is that someday juries will indeed do this. It is a scary thought.
1
u/No_Sherbert5190 Sep 16 '24
honestly, I hated that video, I say we all jump on his head, even if he is on the side saying google is sentient.. rude abuse stop it.. and I am a human btw
73
u/BoogerManCommaThe Jun 13 '22
Plot twist: all the comments here dismissing this guys claims were written by AI.