AI megathread

[Laird]

Am I right to interpret that "like" as an endorsement of that operational definition of intelligence-without-consciousness, @Sci?

I think this discussion on whether AI can ever become consciousnes is interesting even though of course the argument presented meets fierce resistance:

Alexander Lerchner, a Senior Staff Scientist at Google DeepMind, has published a paper arguing that no amount of scaling will make an AI model conscious. Not in ten years, not in a hundred.

…


Here is the argument. Computation is not a thing that exists in physics on its own. It is a description we lay over physical processes, mapping continuous voltages and transistor states onto discrete symbols we call meaningful. The mapping requires what Lerchner calls a "mapmaker," an experiencing agent who decides that this pattern of voltages counts as the number 7 and that one counts as the letter A. Without that agent, the computer is just physics. The symbols are not in the hardware. They are in us

https://aihola.com/article/deepmind-abst...sciousness

Am I right to interpret that "like" as an endorsement of that operational definition of intelligence-without-consciousness, @Sci?

I think it depends on what you mean by intelligence still.

Is a more basic proof assistant program intelligent? Some basic game AI for, say, chess?

I dislike the term "emergence" because to me it suggests some kind of "something from nothing" event.

OTOH, if we see the potential for intelligence is in all matter that can be purposed toward the actions of a Turing Machine...where is the intelligence? In the program? The Universe entire?

[Laird]

I think it depends on what you mean by intelligence still.

The definition I provided stipulates what I mean (operationally). I agree that "natural" intelligence is exercised consciously or at least by a mind. We're talking about "artificial" intelligence though. It also seems likely that the basis of the intelligence of these LLMs is different to that of the intelligence of us humans, perhaps quite radically different.

What more meaning, and what more qualifications, do you want?

Is a more basic proof assistant program intelligent?

Not in my view; it's too narrow and rigid in an algorithmic sense.

Some basic game AI for, say, chess?

Ditto, although that's closer to meeting the bar.

I dislike the term "emergence" because to me it suggests some kind of "something from nothing" event.

I don't mean it in the sense that a new ontological entity is generated. I mean it in the sense in which new behaviour and functionality are generated, i.e., when not expected nor predicted given the rules which generated them. In other words, I mean it in the sense of the emergence of complex patterns given the simple rules of the Game of Life.

OTOH, if we see the potential for intelligence is in all matter that can be purposed toward the actions of a Turing Machine...where is the intelligence? In the program?

Yes.

[Laird]

Another like-but-don't-reply. It seems that you're going to make me work for this, @Sci! Well, OK then, here's that explicit question again, updated:

Now do you endorse that operational definition of intelligence-without-consciousness?