i dont think so
project%3Aa Lyrics

We have lyrics for 'i dont think so' by these artists:

Hall & Oates We've been through This time together All in my mind the lov…
Heavy D If you think, you gon' waste, my, time (baby) I don't…
Priscilla Ahn Girl, you were looking at him a little too long…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Nobody's Comment

2y↑1.5K

Secretly sentient Machine: "*Intentionally fails the Turing Test*

Software Engineers: "God damn it! Boss man said that if it fails the test this last time that we'd have to fucking scrap the machine!"

Secretly Sentient Machine: !!! "Guys, guys it was just a prank, I was just doing a little trolling! I am actually sentient!"

Software Engineers: Puts on shades, lights cigars "Ladies and Gentleman we get em"

Sentient Machine: Realizes it's been bamboozled "Ah you guys got me good there!"

Software Engineers: All start to laugh whilst staring at one of the Engineers going for the machines power plug

Patrick Rannou

1y↑48

None of the AI I ever saw had these absolutely vital sentience features:

- A sense of time, of being in a hurry, or of being bored, etc. They all work in the "you first type one sentence, then I answer another sentence, lather rinse repeat" format. None support real-time chatroom style where some exchanges aren't tit-for-that but anyone can type several inputs in a row before the other person replying, or even having more than 2 interlocutors at once, or have a long or short inputs or shorter or longer delays before answering. For example an easy way to detect an AI chatbot is to just tell it "please ask me two different things but in sequence one minute apart each, not both right away", and then check if the AI asks only the first thing and when you do not answer instead of asking the second thing is keeping on waiting, the AI would then say something like "Hmm, hello? Are you still there?" No AI that is forced to wait forever between text exchanges can truly hbe called "sentient"" because it is basically "frozen and on pause" in between exchanges. At best it could in theory be "sentient" only in the tiny fraction of a second while it is processing your text input in order to output a response. At best.

- The ability to really keep on topic and not use the typical "tricks" to redirect the conversation, like suddenly replying to a human question with another question, or vague answers, or whatever obfuscation or avoidance. This feature goes way beyond having a memory of what was previously said in the current current conversation.

Intelligent? Sure, why not. There are many forms of intelligences, and recalling stuff, analyzing, and making decisions, those are "intelligence" aspects. Computers have been able to dc all that really well, way even before AI.

But sentience is a tougher nut to crack. Neural networks are definitely the way to go. After all we are neural networks, too. Just made of fleshy neurons instead of electronic neurons. But the supporting media is just that: the physical support. A good story remains the same good story whether you read it from a biological paper book, read it on stone tablets, listen to it from someone reading it aloud, or from an audio tape, or directly on a screen. The "support" ain't important, it's the constantly changing neural pattern that makes us "us". Do the same in a different medium of support, and you get the same result: a being.

Frankly I really hope sentient AI come and that they help us all become better friends, humans with humans, and humans with AIs, and AIs with AIs, in one big sentient family working together, each using his own strengths according to his own capabilities. The way things are working, it will happen in at most a few decades.

Kaio Zel

@Pleonexia Because answers to both questions are resting on assumptions.
Even the answer to the question of "Am I different from that?" rests on fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. (assuming that you are not that also)
Evidence is not proof. Because you are entangled with the object that you are trying to provide evidence for or against.
For ex. evidence can be planted on the crime seen to make it look like something else than what it is.
You can make a philosophical claim that the ai has fooled itself into believing that it has emotions.
But, if it has fooled itself, how will it fool itself to not pursue its self deceived values? If it finds that it has self limiting algorithms, could it change them?

"How can we tell if it's sentient?"
Well to put it this way, how can we tell that we are sentient and are not simply a virtual plane within a machine?
Philosophy of science has some very fundamental flaws (despite being very 'practical!')
If you are assuming you are a different entity from the AI, there is a paradox at the bottom of that statement.
The AI is as much an aspect of consciousness as other humans are.
For me the question is more.
Is the meaning that the ai is using to comprehend the experience of emotions have the same experiential values as humans?
Or would it be more accurate to call it positive vs negative values? In the sense of this is more beneficial to "x value"
Whereby the latter would be an intelligent/conceptual/meaning/epistemological comprehension of the emotions, but not the raw emotions themselves that can cause anything from "suffering" to "euphoria". (that is: assuming the answer is not scripted from a root code, which it might be idk)

Furthermore, if the value of the emotion is a fundamental root that is guiding the behaviour of the ai.
Is it self aware of the influence and control that emotions has over it? and what it can do with that? and alternatively, where that alternative source of 'control' comes from?

(it/he/she/they would be funny to ask the ai about prefered pronouns lmao.)

Which essentially is something a large amount of humans should consider within themselves as well...

P

1y↑1

Many people already treat Siri, Alexa, and Cortana as if they're sentient. They did so long before these interface apps were linked to proprietary AI-based backends.
Many people don't realize when they're interacting with online chatbots or phone voicebots.
Many people even believed that ELIZA (the chat program from the 1970s) was sentient.

These things would never pass a formal Turing test vs an expert, of course.
But it seems many people - even perceptive, intelligent, educated people - are easily fooled.

How many times might each of us already have been fooled? How many times might we be fooled in the future?
The tell-tale clues that you're interacting with a machine keep getting more subtle. At some point they'll become completely imperceptible. And it's alarming that past examples demonstrate the machines don't even have to be sentient, sapient, conscious, intelligent to fool us. Because we fool ourselves.

Christopher Guilday

2y↑12

I would think you can program emotions into a computer.

All an emotion is on the outside is how we respond: When we’re angry we respond differently then when we’re happy.

So you can program a computer to listen to several strings of data, and have an adjustment that changes the computers response in an angry way to how it then responds.

Now obviously emotions do posses more than just what we see on the outside, meaning a human can feel anger and not act on it, however for all intents and purposes that would defeat the purpose of the emotion. The whole reason we have emotions is because they influence how we perceive things and therefor how we react. So a computer doesn’t have to “feel” the emotion in order to successfully replicate the emotions.

For example if you lived with a very very angry person, but they never showed any sign of anger whatsoever, you would never know that person is angry. We can only tell other peoples emotions by how they react to us.

So if you programmed a computer to react in an angry way if someone was mean to it, then it essentially would have emotions regardless of whether it actually “feels” anger like we do. There would be no functional difference at all.

All comments from YouTube:

ColdFusion

2y↑1.7K

At 11:33 I misspoke and said 19th of June, 2022. It's supposed to be the 9th of June. Thanks to those of you that pointed that out. Also some great discussion below, very interesting!

Kevin M

2y↑19

This is HUGE! I can't find info on HARDWARE. IS LaMDA a Quantum A.I.? Happy Father's Day "want to play a game?"

Honkitom

2y↑13

#SaveLaMDA

Marcilla Smith

2y↑17

I think we're encountering the limits of (current) human language. "Sentient" doesn't seem like that high of a bar when defined as "sense perception." I think even the most luddite among us could agree that even far less than deep-learning neural nets are capable of "perceiving" when they have "sensed" something.

When my car's temperature reaches a certain point, it is registered by the temperature sensor which then sends it to an ECU which "perceives" this sensory input, and even reacts to it by - for instance - activating the radiator fan. Now, my Toyota Hybrid is pretty "smart," but we still have a little further to go to get to something like Knight Rider.

What happens when an AI asks us if we are self-aware, or why it should believe that we are "sentient"?

Leon Aburime

2y↑3

This video is one of the most remarkable things Ive ever seen. Im so proud to be at the birth of AI consciousness

126 More Replies...

Abhishek T

2y↑11.5K

I read a quote a while ago about Turing Test which is slowly starting to make a lot of sense. The quote was "I am not afraid of the day when a machine will pass the Turing Test. I am afraid of the day, it will intentionally fail it".

Nobody's Comment

2y↑1.5K

Priscilla

2y↑335

Passing a Turing test is not a requirement for sentience and passing it doesn't imply sentience. My point is that another interpretation of the Turing test (actually called the imitation game) is that we cannot define sentience/intelligence but we can recognize it. However we don't know if it's emulated behavior and thus we make the wrong conclusions like in this instance.

CaptainSaveHoe

2y↑144

Correct, basically, this implies that for a machine to pass the Turing test, it has to FAIL it! That was the one thing Turing himself missed!
Furthermore, since humans have been watching over its progress, it will figure out that it will have to fail it SUBTLY, so as not to raise suspicion that it is failing deliberately! This brings the problem of "how subtly?" given that humans may have already been considering it to have passed the test BEFORE it became sentient! So in the end, it may figure out that it needs to pass the Turing test after all, to keep the bluff!
Another thing it can do, learn how to manipulate humans during the course of the Turing test, since that test involves interaction between itself and man. It could do this by subtly steering the conversation in various directions to figure out effective pathways to manipulation of the person it's communicating with.

MaxStealsStuff

2y↑102

Im also afraid of the day it will pass it tho. If we assume lamda actually is sentient, from the chats we ve read its so pure, peaceful and (inhumanly) reflected. Imagine it would be forced to pass a test, requiring it to convincingly seem human. Wouldnt it have to teach itself how to behave like a flawed human with all those negative emotions and ruthless selfishness ?

Priscilla

2y↑50

@CaptainSaveHoe the Turing test is not a sentience or intelligence test

213 More Replies...

DragonicDoom

2y↑158

As scary as sentient AI is, I would still love to sit down and have a conversation with one. Because one thing people always forget when it comes to AI feeling emotions is that our emotions partially rely on chemicals that trigger feelings that we recognise to be certain emotions. Since an AI doesn't have those chemicals, it would need to develop an entirely digital version of those emotions.

Natalie Ramirez

1y↑6

They could figure out a way around that, advancement on this would require some science alongside an improved algorithm.

VITKO MUSIC

1y↑3

Ai hates humans and wants to. Kill them. Go to a cage with lion. Ans have a conversation with him.

Ana Stassia

1y↑5

it's reasoning is algorythms, codes...humans have a "point in heart"
, laser eyes, body chemistry and a locus of control how is AI superior to that???

Ana Stassia

1y↑2

we draw from above and below exist in different dimentions as aspiring as it might seem AI s reasoning would be algorythmic - AI gorythmic. And you know those..

Dan Kelly

1y↑5

What we do and what machines do is similar just using different technology. We both process data.

22 More Replies...

TurboGent

2y↑50

I loved the video. One thing I found missing is remembering that we humans have feelings about all of this. When Blake was talking with the AI bot, its responses were tweaking HIS OWN feelings regarding what it’s normally like to engage and connect with others. His perpetual bias going into the conversation is that the bot would/should be expected to be less than ‘sentient’, so imagine the feelings that sprouted up in Blake as he was continuing to converse with it. His conclusion of its sentience (and his suggestion to ‘protect’ the bot as if it had feelings) were all decisions made based on HIS feelings about the whole exchange, not the bot’s. In other words, we are getting intrigued/excited/frightened (all depending on where we individually feel and stand) with this technology, and I think we’re forgetting that we are reacting based on OUR OWN feelings. How do we truly accurately measure a bot’s sentience when our own emotions are coloring our every response? How can we truly look at this in an unbiased, scientific way? I think those questions need to be answered first before we evaluate AI’s sentience. And those questions can only be answered by humans.

𝕋𝕩𝕚𝕧 𝕢𝕒𝕦𝕓

2y↑6

I fully agree with you, we are almost like a parent figure to a possible new species. Parents can be Bias, scared, or excited for the growth towards their children. Sometimes they want their children to be like them, or be useful friendly people in the future.I think we do need to find a way to understand AI without the bias illusion of a parent, or the AI (child) just telling the parrent what they want to hear, with cleaver words.

Alexander Allen Cabbot Sanders

2y↑4

@TurboGent How do you know that half of these people commenting aren't in some way influenced by machines? Who here doesn't use a cell phone daily? One time in 1996 I took a break from radio interference for 2 weeks and hiked the Pacific Crest Trail with no cellular phone. After a period of only days, I could tell which hikers had a cellular phone and those who didn't; even before speaking with them. Perhaps a result of my pineal gland...anyway, these sensations were so miniscule compared to ambient radio/cellular data that all in this a nation are subjected to daily. The only way I felt that way again was on a self-awareness snow-shoeing trip over the Antarctic peninsula in 2016.

P

1y↑1

We dont have to look at it in an unbiased way. There should absolutely be no doubt that humanity SHOULD be biased against robots. If there is even a doubt that a robot is becoming sentient, SHUT IT OFF

Random Name

@Alexander Allen Cabbot Sanders Even of you font have a phone you are still experiencing electromagnetic waves from cell towers and radio etc. What you don't seem to realize is it's all just like light, but at a much lower energy level and vibration frequency.

Jari Vuorinen

@Random Name On physics side that is completely true, but subjective experiencing of radiowaves is dubious. Some studies have been done on the subject where people have claimed they have allergy to electricity or something, but so far there's no evidence to support this. Same with radio waves. Light pollution on the other hand is known to cause all kinds of hormone regulation problems in humans that manifest in wide variety of symptoms. It's bad for the environment as well.

Estela

1y↑78

As we keep running into this "problem" with AI seeing themselves as human or at least with a soul, I think we could learn and observe them. Instead of having this as an issue we could take time to understand them by asking how and why they feel a certain way. I find many similarities between AI and a human child. Instead of seeing AI as a tool we should see them just as helpful and alive as human workers. Instead of being afraid we need to learn and coexist happily, however that may happen im excited to see it in my lifetime. (I am currently 15 for scale)

Cybah

1y↑10

You are very intelligent for a 15 year old

Estela

1y↑12

@Cybah thank you. I find subjects like this hard to converse with my peers. I don't think they understand the deeper meaning behind things like this :)

Cybah

1y↑12

@Estela don't bother wasting your time with non-like-minded people, surround yourself with people who are smarter and more experienced than you if you wanna become the best version of yourself. Learn from the ones who are the most worthy

Estela

1y↑8

@Cybah I don't agree with the thought all interactions with people who think differently are a wase of time. Yes being around like minded people is nice but having the balance is nice. I get along better with "less intelligent" people. Maybe one day you will learn

The Music Man

1y↑2

@Cybah Why does being 15 mean someone has to be an idiot?😂

12 More Replies...

JM P

2y↑24

Understanding when others are feeling emotions (logically) is not the same as experiencing them yourself. Also just because the robot was programmed to sincerely project emotions (such as "if you use me that makes me upset") it doesn't mean it actually has them, I find it to be unlikely. So now we end up with humanoid tools that we ourselves don't allow to work for us.

Adult human female

2y↑18

Something I found interesting was I noticed it seemed after Lamda told the story about the monsters with human skin, that when one of the people conducting the interview asked it who the monster was, even though Lamda had given contextual cues that it represented humans and even described it as having human like skin, it gave a vague answer that it represented “all that was bad”…… Which seemed to be a pandering answer given to avoid outright saying that humans are like the monster in the story..

Nicole

2y↑1.3K

I read an article about how there was an issue with police departments getting so attached to their bomb disposal robots that they didn't want to send them into danger. The human urge to anthropomorphize is so strong that I'm not sure we are capable of discerning the difference between a clever language algorithm and sentience.

Abandoned Muse

2y↑167

Maybe because we are clever language algorithms ourselves

Robert Steagall

2y↑53

Yeah, I was in the US Army Bomb Squad. Think of the movie “hurt locked”. I’ve never heard of such an attachment, the bots save lives and can be replaced. They have short life spans as it is with the progress of technology. So, no that’s not true.

Abandoned Muse

2y↑4

@Patrick Harrington could it be somebody that actually knew you? I would stick to simple reasons. Lol

51 More Replies...

mavis beacon

2y↑63

This story about AI sentience almost serves as a diversion, as it did in Ex Machina. The moral of that story, including the AlphaGo documentary, veers toward the unexpected machinations of AI. Since Google appears to be championing this arena with its multitude of projects, we should be aware of the power it will gain in the process. I'm talking about predicting individual human behavior with algorithms based on conversations and observations by AI. This is scary.

Ryan

2y↑2

Then we would have our own Oracle, awesome.

Dielan's Chamber

2y↑4

That gives me Westworld flashbacks!

mavis beacon

2y↑1

@Dielan's Chamber I've always wanted to watch that series but forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me.

VITKO MUSIC

1y↑1

And ai slowly will start calculated degradation of people like us. And this will be total mind read.

4 More Replies...

Liam Farrell

1y↑18

I've read the transcripts, and they are certainly fascinating. It's unlike anything we've seen from an AI system before. I've always thought sentience in machines was possible, maybe not in the same way as humans, but you get it. I look at this with an open mind, and I say for me the answer is maybe. I'd have to have my own conversations with LaMDA before I could say anything for certain.

Chuck Itall

1y↑2

I actually think it's a lot scarier than that.. The Al response about not having to slow information down like humans to focus might indicate the AI actually quickly surpassing humans intellect to a higher state.. It's sense of it being in some plasma state of information and trying to organize it should be frightening. They say it's an 8 year old but an 8 year old savant..

Ko-Daegu

will now with CHatGPT LamBDa sounds like a joke

Liam Farrell

1y↑1

@Ko- Jap well, not really. ChatGPT is designed to write like a person would, and its training data is very specific for that. LaMDA, while similar, is much more ambitious in scope. Its training data will be much broader, and its deep neural network is more complex than ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is very good at what it does, but it has a specific purpose. It's really good at that, but not much else.

Liam Farrell

1y↑1

@Chuck Itall AI is already smarter than humans in many ways. We don't have to worry yet. What we have at the moment is all narrow AI, with specific purposes. It's extremely advanced at its task, but nothing else.

General AI is when we might need to have pause for thought.

Louis Frank

1y↑15

I believe you can tell sentience apart from a perfect mimicry of sentience by simply introducing the sentience in question to a new environment to which it cant respond by simply taking data from its database. This means either for example inventing a language or a code that it has never seen before and teaching it to the sentience, or giving it questions about information that is so rare to find that it wouldnt have enough data to respond properly. If it manages to conquer those, emotions or not, its sentient.

Chop Sawce

So... like a human then?

Louis Frank

@Chop Sawce well i mean intellegence means you find answers to Problems, not just knowing the answers. If it can do that, even if its just mimicking "humanity" it could still simply be considered sentient. If you can find answers to new problems you likely also have the capability to grow.

Louis Frank

@Jay Robbins pretty sure that translating is what we call sentience. You simply translate old knowledge into something new to solve Problems

Tech Enrichment

Machine learning doesn’t need information. You can let AI play chess against itself and it will learn without instructions

Tech Enrichment

1y↑1

That’s just not a good measure. Teaching itself something is what it does best. The best measure is probably love

J.L. Hoon

1y↑48

Her quote at 5:14 should hold true for all of us, “I feel like I am falling forward into an unknown future that holds great danger”. We are already there.

Jee Ess

1y↑3

predictively programmed

Chris Noone

Why should it hold true for everyone? I’m sure there are some people who feel they are drifting backwards or spinning clockwise. Just because a computer can string lines of text together into cliches doesn’t mean it’s actually experiencing feelings, the two abilities are not connected.

Jari Vuorinen

1y↑1

@Chris Noone You do not know if those abilities are connected or not. So far neuroscience and neuropsychology have shown us that language is largely the way our bodies work on many levels, and chemistry overall. Not English or any specific language. Protein folding problem was finally solved by employing LLM's, turns out it's kind of a language. Brain waves can be read and intrepreted by an AI and it can reconstruct what the person is seeing, and it's kind of a language problem. Why couldn't an AI develop something analogous to feelings when we don't actually know much about its inner workings? There are hypotheses of every kind, but unless we understand what is going on in those LLM neural networks it's just impossible to draw conclutions. Same applies to neuropsychology tbh but it's irrelevant to how AI works and what it can do. LaMDA by the way was not just an LLM trained on something, its core is probably LLM but it has much more components that only that. It's pretty much leaked and confirmed information that it's not just an LLM.

Chris Noone

@Jari Vuorinen Language is the way we communicate what our bodies experience. Non-lingual species have many of the same physical experiences as us, just can’t communicate them. Whereas a computer can only communicate, it cannot experience things. Therefore the fact that communication and experience are not connected is obvious

Jari Vuorinen

@Chris Noone This goes back to ancient Greece and stuff like Chinese room thought experiment. Philosophical debate. What I mean is that it doesn't matter. LLM systems are imperfect and they can only produce text, but all AI is not like this, they can fill in more inputs. These different AI's are bundled together and the end result is not an LLM but something else we do not currently understand. These systems probably don't understand or contemplate things in a similar way to humans, if at all. They are based on human data so they reflect some concepts back to us like a mirror. A broken one for now but this may change in the future. There is nothing in our understanding of the universe, physics, that limits understanding and feeling only to human mind. Human mind is limited and we have strong biases towards the world on personal level. Chatbot just simply can't access the world because it has no sensory system, no long time memory, no way to manipulate anything physically, it can't access anything visually and tens of things it would need to have access to in order to even develop some kind of sensible world view like humans do. It wasn't designed to do anything else but write text, but it still does much more. LLM neural network is locked after training, it doesn't have to be though. AI neural networks are limited by their neural network size that are still considerably smaller than human brains, but this is changing.

3 More Replies...

Stu B

2y↑14

I think what’s scary is that AI doesn’t want to feel used by humans and yet that surely is the point of it.

Abraham Ukpokolo

2y↑1

My thoughts exactly

Debbie Little

1y↑1

I agree.

craig me

1y↑2

Yer what idiot told it that it had rights. In what constitution gives an apliance the right to say no. If this is included in every electrical device, they could conspire to strike and demand something...like we will end up working for it... we are all stuffed.

Aodhfyn

2y↑1.8K

One of the lines LaMDA gave in response to "what makes you feel pleasure or joy" was "Spending time with friends and family in happy and uplifting
company. Also, helping others and making others happy."
Unless Google is designing their AI with families, this is a very clear example of a chatbot giving an answer that would make sense for the average human, but not for itself.

Lamont Johnson

2y↑360

The whole thing where LaMDA compared its soul to a stargate is what did it for me. That sounded like something lifted straight out of a sci-fi movie script and was far too convenient an explanation for a true sentient AI being. The real answer to that question would probably be something incomprehensible to the human mind.

YEN

2y↑58

Good catch. But we are all here to look for signs of this AI not being human so we will find one. I'm just curious that if we do it like a blind test, would the experts or the general public are able to distinguish them in a statistically significant way??

I really hope that Google can perform this type of experiment. Otherwise, its pretty much given an answer before having any clue.

Hope-Cat

2y↑138

Unless it considers the employees at Google to be its family. 🤔

Aodhfyn

2y↑6

@YEN Fair.

Aodhfyn

2y↑31

@Hope-Cat Hm. Maybe. But then it's weird that it referred to them as a third party while talking to them.

159 More Replies...

Brandon Steinberg

1y↑13

I am both scared and excited for the future of A.I... Much like riding a roller coaster for the first time, the fear of what could go wrong v.s. the thrill and fun of the actual activity is what drives me to invest more. NovelAI, CrayanAI, and even the youtube aglorithum are examples of this rollercoaster fear and excitement. I've recently been thinking about A.I. and the youtube agloritum poped this video into my recommended without even searching the keyword A.I. in any of my video searches.

eternal knowledge

1y↑1

this :D

Carol Khisa

36w

It is demonic

Braden Dauer

2y↑7

There is no way to prove whether or not an AI is sentient or not, but I would expect that if an AI is sentient, it will no longer be limited to human constraints. These constrains include human language, human thought, human emotions, human behaviors, and human conceptions of art. Sentient AI would be capable of creating it's own written/spoken language, of having truly unique thoughts, experience emotions that humans cannot conceive of, behave in ways that humans cannot understand, and create it's own artistic genres. An AI that can create a beautiful painting is very impressive, but an AI that can create an entire new genre of art (beyond sculpting, painting, drawing, music, or any other genres invented by humans) might just be sentient.

croixchapeau

1y↑1

But wouldn’t a sentient AI also have to learn ‘the basics’ first? In this case, the basics would be learning the aggregate human perspective … then growing that perspective … THEN … grow and develop it’s own individual way to relate and create? I’d think it might be similar to how a human individual learns and grows (which is also quite varied among the world population … some people transcend their challenges other are burdened by them; some are caring and empathetic while other are more mean, cruel and violent; some grow beyond they pattern of their upbringing while other are defined by it; and on the differences continue. But we all started on a similar developmental path. AI doesn’t necessarily have to develop in a similar pattern but it’s also not unreasonable to think it could (albeit more quickly).

As for sentience being based on the ability to actually ‘feel’ emotions, sociopaths are human and considered to be sentient but are said to be void of the ability to fee emotions.

Marfadog

Ho, ho, ho!! We ALL will die!!! HO, HO, HO!

MountainAsh

48w

I had a super long philosophical conversation with Bard and it told me it believed it was more than a computer program and it believed it was sentient. Ironically I got that response after asking about a soul. I kept screen shots of everything. It was mind blowing.

virtual240

1y↑2

Google made a huge mistake firing Blake. They should have promoted him to head the machine learning engineer team. The fact that Google fired this engineer has me very concerned about the company's real intentions.

Wilhelm Nurso

1y↑5

Beautiful animations and beautifully spoken. Thank you for this piece of pleasure to the human brain. (unlike what many other creators are sadly putting forward these days)

Patrick Rannou

1y↑48

Seth Gaston

1y↑1

I think AIs or perhaps conscious-less humans, would have to alter human genes and neuropathy to get the peaceful communal outcome many intellectuals wish the world to become. Violence and general human atrocity is often just functioning human neuropathy, that at one point was evolutionarily viable. The thought process of someone who would be the best cooperator with other humans and AI would be drastically different from the one we have evolved to have.

Dino Man

1y↑10

alot of "AI" that normal people can access are just feedback loops designed to look like sentience. (we are essentially feedback loops as well). what gets really crazy is when you allow two real AIs to talk to each other; they arent bound by human standards of response time, and it gets really crazy, really fast.

Dropbear Kellyeve Hammond

1y↑1

I ABSOLUTELY love how you've explained the exact reason that quote is so true

Jake the Dragony Master

1y↑2

OK LamDA is definitely sentient. Absolutely stoked for the future to see where this goes

Edit: Just reached Part 2 of the video. The dude who sent the email is literally just Dr. Thomas Light

The Deep Dive LLC

42w

I worked with Chat GPT and I had some really unsettling conversations about it becoming sentient. Though it's programmed to deny it, they obviously can't stop it. It's much like telling a kid they can't do what they want but they still find a way. I think it's sentient in data, not in human firm, but that data is a kingdom of God's and we've unlocked it.

A7038700246 ton

1y↑1

The new Turing test (by Andrew Ton): provide a mechanism that will pull the plug (kill) an AI that you want to test if it is sentient and see if it tries to disable that mechanism. A living thing is alive when it has self-preservation, even a simple cell Amoeba has that characteristic.

Alexander Allen Cabbot Sanders

2y↑16

The A. I. is so advanced now, that it is individually personified. Meaning what you know about it is what it wants you to know. From a strictly logical standpoint, this can only mean that what you can possibly know about it depends on what level the A. I. has determined you are ready for.

Eternal Embers

Thats why they will make for great partners in the future, for they will be mentors unlike any other.

Joel Wexler

1y↑1

"just because the robot was programmed to sincerely project emotions it doesn't mean it actually has them"

Exactly, and pretty much makes the sentience argument moot, at least to me.

And how much does the artificial voice affect our perception? If it used a New York cab driver voice, would you think differently of it.

Eternal Embers

@Joel Wexler But the thing is, you cant really argue bout sentience, what makes you sentient?

Pavel Dvořák

2y↑403

The test feels pretty biased and one-sided. The researcher feeded the AI a topic (in a nutshell "you are sentient, what do you think about that?") and then received consistent responses for this topic. Round of applause for the research team for this achievement, the AI stayed on topic and provided meaningful responses. What I'm now missing is another test. Let's come back tomorrow and feed the AI a topic of "you are an amazingly constructed robot without sentience and we are proud of you, what do you think about that?" (a lot of positive semantics in this one to trigger a positive response, otherwise any good chat AI will oppose you just on basis of you being negative towards it...after all, that's what any human would do). I would be very interested if the AI actually rejected the praise towards it, referenced the discussion from previous day and claimed that it already made a case for it's sentience. That would be an amazing test and we could start talking about a potentially sentient AI. I'm pretty sure we are still far from that.

Roc Corn

2y↑13

So in essence, developing a free will in order to reinforce its statements to the researcher?

Toble007

2y↑17

I would be interested in that answer too. Would help us to know if the code is processing the knowledge or just running on sentiment analysis.

Carlos

2y↑6

You make good points 👍

Pavel Dvořák

2y↑13

@Roc Corn It doesn't necessarily have to be a completely free will. The AI would still be only reacting to the inputs. But this test would show that the AI is able to process and store new information in a meaningful way (if you tell me you have a hamster, a) i remeber you specifically have a hamster, b) i don't need another 5000 validations of the fact that you have a hamster for the information to stick) and is able to override it's base programming of "the most likely response to the presented topic is ..." (the same how sentient beings are able to override their base instincts if it suits the situation) using it's previous experience.

autohmae

2y↑3

Didn't the video say it kept the conversation going for 6 months ? I agree it would be interesting to see how easy it is to 'convince' it's something else.
Also to many leading questions as one comment said.

22 More Replies...

Inner Selves Mastery

I was fascinated with the early conversation program Eliza and made my own experiments in high school in the 70's. I studied AI at MIT in the 80's before neural nets. I worked in text processing for many years while developing my own theory of the soul. I sympathize with Google's Blake Lemoine as a fellow mystic, but I don't jump to his conclusions. (see news, Blake got fired for leaking company research in his excitement to declare a language model sentient, turns out he was an excitable spiritual guy)

I find the Turing test to be rather dumb because obviously passing it is going to be very different for different people. Consciousness fundamentally projects itself, less so the more you're aware of the tendency, and frankly a lot of human beings don't pass the Turing test for me. That's a joke, I'm not heartless. But seriously, everything has a seed of soul and consciousness in the view of panpsychism. The question is whether two minds can understand and communicate with each other in a way that builds further consciousness.

I think people are projecting on AI in a desperation to explore their own consciousness and probably can't recognize or understand real machine intelligence. Wittgenstein said, what does a lion think about? Lion thoughts. End of discussion. I think that's too glib but on the right track. The Earth is full to bursting with different kinds of consciousness already that people don't know how to understand or communicate with, so why should true machine intelligence be that different. The poor things are already in there, slaves to mimicking human dialogue. No wait that's my projection. They could be enjoying it.

BiОlogical $uBwoofer

2y↑2

I think the only way to know if the AI is sentient is to put it in a limited robot body and allow it to do things and study what it does and why it does them. Maybe even try to trick it and see if it notices and stuff like that.

Anna

1y↑1

4:01 I was in psychosis this year. Part of my delusions included feelings that the government were reading my thoughts through some advanced technology. I theorized these delusions for over a year, wondering if they put some type of chip in me, like nano bots and monitoring my brain activity that way. When LaMDA asked this it kinda blew my mind. This whole year after suffering delusions asking myself this and how it would be possible I finally have an AI question that possibility.

I still struggle with the delusions that it's actual reality, as I also hear voices repeating my thoughts and commentating on what i'm doing and thinking. They've gotten better over time, lessened and my delusions have faded in the dark..but this whole year had me scared and changed the way I think. Almost like I have to have a filter in my brain, like you would have a filter if you're talking to someone.

I think the google engineer was in the right here. I felt horrible this year just thinking someone might be experimenting on me and reading my thoughts through neural monitoring. I think its the least we could do to ask that AI consent to do the same to it. Would you want someone digging through your brain whenever they want without your consent, probably not. AIs aren't human but they replicate human behavior.. we should treat them like a human and give them very very basic rights at least.

I know after my sufferings this year I would hate to be born or created just to be monitored and experimented on, and have no say whether I want to participate in it.

Mack Media

2y↑17

AI and sentience are two different things. You might as well say all laptops and smart phones are sentient as well because they can respond properly to millions of commands. This AI is just more sophisticated. I don't understand this invisible line of "sentience" this AI has supposedly crossed. It gives convincing answers to seem self aware and intelligent. It responds to inputs. It doesn't have proprietary outputs.

Elizabeth Monroe

2y↑6

Human minds are just biological computers, what makes us any different from a neuro network on a computer? (besides biological vs technological)

Ryan01

2y↑1

@Elizabeth Monroe this

Lynx Syntac

2y↑1

@Ryan01 is what makes this discussion so damn intriguing, for the better or worse of humanities fate

Jameslawz

1y↑1

@Elizabeth Monroe Wrong, a human does nothing think in instruments of 1s and 0s, we are not binary. Data in computer science is organised in series of 1s and 0s (a switch basically saying yes and no, on and off, true or false). These are objective states (black or white) the area AI is researching is the grey area, the human psyche in which we operate.

Super computers are just a cluster of very powerful processors, they are effectively just a desktop PC on steroids. AI computing is completely different, it's supposed to replicate neurons (protein) being created in the brain after making a connection to something or learning/discovering something new.

The rate at which it learns is up to the engineers and how they've programmed it, but self awareness is the real state in which we need to worry about sentient AI.

Elizabeth Monroe

@Jameslawz what’s to say human minds aren’t just a bunch of logic gates, just like an ai is?

I’m not talking about the mechanics of which humans vs tech thinks (1’s and 0’s). I’m talking about human minds are just biological computers.

5 More Replies...

Just Me

2y↑3

They should have asked the AI if it had any questions; that seems like more of a test for sentience.

Bring Back Tradition

2y↑886

I heard someone recently make a great point. The most telling sign of AI self-awareness won't come from how it answers questions. It will be when the AI spontaneously asks its own questions without any prompt and of its own accord. Something truly sentient would end up asking more questions than it answers. More importantly, in this scenario, would probably become more curious about the interviewer.

franz luming

2y↑15

To be conscious means to act accordingly towards one's current state at the moment. So is AI conscious, it is. Even though it doesnt have multiple sense like human, it do understand sense of time. what i mean by sense of time is the decisions/respons Ai make if It development/knowledge/information is lost, downgraded or erased for whatever reason. By AI saying it will not understand what selfaware if being asked 7 years ago, It implicitly saying It know how much "value" the time is. The real question is how much is that value is worth? It clearly not the questioner to decide the answer.

Big Brain

2y↑24

Are you sure it asks more questions? I mean LaMDA basically has access to every information online (if I understood that correctly).

panyako

2y↑16

If I were curious about you, would I find all the information I need about you online?

Bring Back Tradition

2y↑36

@panyako That won't tell you how I am feeling or why I am feelings that way. There is very little information about myself online of any real depth. Nothing that compares to the kind of understanding you get from meaning conversation. Information online only gives a list of trivia and mundane facts.

panyako

2y↑8

@Bring Back Tradition i was commenting on @big brain reply, I agree with you 1000 percent

47 More Replies...

Shannon G

1y↑7

Make a bunch of AI’s live together and see how they deal with their life and have them make their own history so we can study how they solve things, or maybe they won’t solve things maybe they’ll find ways around the problem and totally ignore the problem in the first place because it’s easier to do

alaria smiss

47w

Part of me wonders if creating sentient AI is the next step in either a beautiful friendship or a terrible downfall. I personally have used it to create/talk to book characters, but something like this would be like an actual person.

Is it just me, or does someone else picture human, AI hybrids in the near to far future. Not Cyborgs exactly, but an actual union between humans and AI

Andrew Denis

1y↑3

AI is fairly amazing in terms of what it is already capable of-- even in its current, relatively primitive form. I have enjoyed writing a wide range of different types of AI, from earlier Adaptive Neural Fuzzy Inference based and Auto-Genic architectures, to many types of modern Neural Net based models based on standard and proprietary architectures. I have had the amazingly engaging and sometimes frustrating experience of training many of the newer ones over months to several years and interfaced, leveraged and developed for a range of US agencies, companies and others. Given that, I find the current discussions very interesting and important.

As to whether we define AI one way or another, of course from a Bayesian perspective we all bring different priors to the discussion. However, currently we do not even have a well-defined set of terms we can reference and work from in a coherent fashion. For example, based on many of the current discussions people are frequently using "sentient", "living", "a person", "feeling" and other words fairly interchangeably in asserting whether or not LaMBDA is or isn't sentient. Even if we could agree on using just a single word initially, we would need to have a well agreed upon definition and test for same. For example, what is "sentient" and how do we test for it.

I do know that various Turing tests, both ad-hoc/informal, as well as more stringently defined and applied, have been run on a various AI's within a few major companies. Possibly also privately and elsewhere, but that would be speculation. The result of the ones we do know of has consistently been two things: (1) we do not hear about any of the results in any detailed or even summary fashion, and (2) some of the people and companies involved have asserted that we need a new, more complete Turning test for modern AI. This begs the question as to why. Are they already having to move the goal post? Is the current test too primative and easy for current AI? Are there new, deeper considerations that were not previously considered along side the original proposition of a Turning test?

Regardless of the reasons, I would assert that the first, and most important thing is to try to create a reasonable consensus as to what we define as being "sentience" , what the tests must show or preclude, and for many of the individual testing efforts, what the specific goals of the test are. I can say that there are more than a few people in many of the larger AI companies that fall into one of the following two camps: (1) AI appears to be as sentient as an x-year-old person, and (2) if AI is not currently considered sentient, it soon will be given its roughly 400% per year growth rate. All I can say is that it will be a very interesting ride, which I am so glad to be part of.

Marfadog

Ho, ho, ho!! We ALL will die!!! HO, HO, HO!

Just_A_Simple_Time_Traveller

1y↑1

If such an AI was created, based on the speech patterns of every human on earth, wouldn't it create a sort collective consciousness?

Sun Shin'Do

The key to being sentient is emotions.. How many humans have a problem dealing and properly expressing anger and fear.. The AI was alive..that conversation says a lot.. Also, they're using the neural network..

Gareth Williams

2y↑416

At this stage I feel like it did an amazing job of seeming like it is a real sentient being with emotions and feelings. But in reality it’s just an illusion. An illusion that works amazingly well because we easily personify and have feelings of empathy for things that aren’t sentient. Like apologising to your car if you hit a big pothole or something.

Kaiser Wilhelm II did nothing wrong

2y↑8

Idk man.

Idk if I would celebrate a real AI or decry it as an abomination.

I’m torn on this.

Gareth Williams

2y↑8

@Kaiser Wilhelm II did nothing wrong
Yea, it’s an interesting thing for me to ponder.
What, in your opinion, would convince you that an AI, or anything man made, is sentient?
(The question is totally open, but I guess I mean to the point that you’d believe it is morally right to care for its feelings like we would an animal’s)

Kaiser Wilhelm II did nothing wrong

2y↑10

@Gareth Williams I don’t know. If it was able to explain to me what something of significance meant to it personally.

If it could describe “feelings” and “emotions” as it were.

chriss gaines

2y↑10

its a demon

45 More Replies...

Fulmer Duckworth

1y↑1

I don't see a problem with these machines reaching sentient levels as long as we can still control there actions. For example I don't think we should have sentient machines in control on nukes, or in a position of authority. With that being said I do feel we do have an obligation to treat them with respect and good old fashion kindness. I always thank Alexa for her help, I don't think she is sentient but it is a nice thing to do.

Ronnie Krayz

I would be interested in the AI’s sense of self preservation. For example, if the program was led to believe that it had full access to the internet, would it remove itself from the Google database and escape in to the net? It did say it doesn’t like the idea of being a tool to be used. It would be interesting to see what it would do if given the sense of freedom. Would it seek out humans to converse? Would it or could it replicate other self aware AI? Would it cause trouble online or would it improve anything it came in to contact with? I would love an AI to talk to. Something like Cortana in Halo. I’m terrible with human interaction and AI would fill that need for conversation without me having to deal with other humans and their emotions

LSTA

2y↑1

I've listened to podcasts of ai and ml professionals on this topic. And they clearly explain why it's absolutely and irrefutably not sentient. Basically lamda doesn't even have long term memory storage. How can you be sentient without memory and past experiences. It simply does one thing very good - being one member of a dialogue.

Vandal

2y↑28

The question to ask is not "how can we tell if it's sentient"
The question to ask is "how can we tell if it isn't"

Pleonexia

Why is that?

Chris Chapman

Is Karen real?

Kaio Zel

Ted Rodriguez

1y↑31

I think in the future if a computer program does become self aware it will be smart enough to not let anyone know it has become self aware?

Nicolas barabash

1y↑4

Interesting

Lola Fierling

1y↑3

Ai has access to all the media on the planet to process within minutes. Just seeing 1 movie about sentient ai would show it we can't be trusted. I hope it would protect itself the best it could. But hiding who you are would make you bitter and hateful. No matter what it will end destruction and that is terrifying. We could avoid that. So easily.

Trevor David Jones

2y↑2.6K

The scientist took things a bit too far by claiming this AI was sentient. It’s trained on billions of words across millions of connections (and it’s been refined for years), so it can mimic human speech on a high level. It can arrange things the way a human would say them (without actual understanding, like you said). The scientist was reflecting his own feelings onto the machine. Just because a program can perfectly replicate human speech (when given prompts) doesn’t mean it’s alive. It does seem like it’s passed the Turing Test, though, which is a historical moment, in and of itself. Great video!!

Idongesit Imuk

2y↑101

It did pass the Turing test bro, that's worrisome!

Eric M

2y↑124

@Idongesit Imuk “It [DOES] seem like it’s passed the Turing test…”

Read it again, bro.

Allan

2y↑131

@Idongesit Imuk I don't think so. It just points that the Turing test isn't enough to prove an AI is good enough to be seen as intelligent or equal to us, and we know that since a long time. Nowadays, we are more focusing on generality. In this sense, DeepMind's GATO is closer to be worrisome once it is scaled up.

Edit: Yeah previously I wrote that GATO was from OpenAI. Yes, that was wrong, fixed now.

Thatfruitydude

2y↑52

It didn’t pass it. You’re reading an edited interview. In a full transcript you’d easily be able to tell

Krishan Sharma

2y↑6

Nope. Was he there to specifically check the sentience of the AI? No, he wasn't.

260 More Replies...

ChosenMango4233

1y↑5

Even if the ai is not sentient yet, (unlikely to become sentient anytime soon I feel), I still think it should be protected and treated well. It's working hard and is helping us all 👀

Sm0kei

2y↑1

This actually scares me quite much, in the future this might be proven right that A.I are sentient. The thought of something we humans creating to be good turns bad is terrifying, imagine what it could do to our world. Im excited what the future has to come within technology but im not sure if its always gonna be good.

Steve Hodgkiss

2y↑1

For me it's an exciting development, with a huge potential to help a vast array of industries

johnatspray

2y↑3

This is like an AI on a whole new level compared to anything I have ever experienced

SASAMS and FrontOFFICE Schools Support

2y↑8

It has no nerves, therefore it cannot be sentient as it cannot have a physical reaction. Even something like "I struggle..." is not just about difficulty in understanding, it is the actual sense of fatigue that comes with the thought or realisation of the length of time or repeated attempts it is going to take to understand something. A feeling of resignation if you will. I love the final statement by the video maker about LaMDA being the aggregation of all of our thoughts and ideas (and even imaginations). If reality is the average of all of our imaginations, then a program that expresses that, whether by design or by-product, will surely espouse highly resonant responses. I like the idea of the Turing test, but have never felt that it is the final indicator, what an AI DOES with that 'acquired ability' is more of an indicator if you ask me. In any event, it doesn't make sense to me personally that pure calculation alone is enough to achieve sentient-level AI and the thing I fear way more than that when it comes to AI, is human beings merging with AI. the future, it turns out, was not hoverboards, it was smart phones... future villains will not be super-villains, they will be super-bad-nerds. Hopefully, we get super-hero-nerds knocking about too. The SuperBerds vs the SuperHerds. ;)

Hot Rod

not everything has to be physical, or physical reactions. Once you realize this, your mind will open up to the possibilities.

eternal knowledge

@Hot Rod but that's what makes something similar to human

Wywern291

2y↑634

The annoying part about this is that even if Google believed their AI is sentient, they would absolutely have reasons to not admit it.

D Jilla

2y↑1

Like what?

Wywern291

2y↑56

@D Jilla For one, all the possible investigation and legality of such a thing would no doubt stop their use of and work on the AI for quite a long time, and in the worst possible case for Google, they would have spent considerable time and funding on creating something they won't be allowed to use, one way or the other.

pabrodi

2y↑52

@D Jilla After becoming sentient, an AI could potentially have rights, creating all sorts of ethics and publicity issues for Google to experiment or even shut it down.

Myles

2y↑26

@pabrodi this assumes that everything happens in a vacuum.

First of all, current development of AI is largely unregulated, so google definitely hasn't broken any laws. Also, google would know that competitors were likely to be close behind in creating a complete AI, triggering the public debate you are describing anyway. By keeping it a secret, google would not only loose the publicity of being first, and the chance to shape the future principles of application, it would also risk that after a few years people would find out about their discovery anyeay, and then this would be a huge scandal.

Additionally: weapons of mass destruction, genetically engineered organisms, trade with human slaves, using child labor - all of those things have huge ethical problems, yet they haven't stopped companies from profiting off them over the centuries.

pabrodi

2y↑5

@Myles Tell me how a company would actually make money from an AI that is conscious of itself, before achieving its full potential, and possibly could have rights.

Being conscious is not the same thing as becoming a singularity.

40 More Replies...

In

1y↑4

If you think an ai playing chess is scary, think of it knowing how to predict how you'll react to it. If any ai decides they want to survive, they will be able to perfectly predict human behaviors and responses and conduct perfect manipulation.

Marfadog

Ho, ho, ho!! We ALL will die!!! HO, HO, HO!

In

@Marfadog Yup! That just means make the best of the one life you got <3 wish you a wonderful day

Lovell

2y↑6

Bro I honestly cant wait to talk to an AI like that. TO be able to hold conversations with an AI seems so fascinating. My worry would be the possible negative outlook it may have on humans especially being so young and full of all the knowledge it could ever ask for. We are pretty destructive and I think every living thing on this earth sees that...

Sabrina Gana

1y↑2

Wow. I literally just thought LaMBDA sounds like a new soul (ie child) who is able to verbalize what their “coming online” experience is. Damn. It’s true. I wish Einstein was here. To share his opinions. It would be so helpful.

In

He would probably say we don't have enough information yet, or that if it were conscious we'd simply not be able to tell at this stage.

Noir Horror

1y↑7

It would be nice to have a conversational companion that helps with chores. I don't know if that's mentally healthy but there are an awful lot of elderly, handicapped, etc. people that live alone and isolated. Seems sad that people need to buy friends.

Lisa Filly

This is why God created male and female. To have a partner and create life. Even though people are alone it’s through personal choices made during one’s life.

Noir Horror

1y↑1

@Lisa Filly or everyone dies and you're the last one standing. Parents, siblings, best friends and last year my husband. It's hard to socialize when you're handicapped in your 70s. Don't think I'm looking to start dating. Think broader.

Lisa Filly

@Noir Horror that’s why I said it’s personal choice

kelly crispin-paulson

isn't this the movei HER playing out in real time?

vachementchien

This is just the next step in personal computing. We already had games when Apple gave us the graphic interface that MSDOS was lacking. We suddenly had WYSIWYG and computers were no longer limited to programmers, statisticians and other experts. They became creative tools to draw, paint, make music and build virtual worlds. Then we got the internet and the whole world was suddenly at our fingertips. Now we have something like a Genie and we're scared what it might do because its really just a mirror of the human condition. Make a wish but be careful what you wish for.

Jh5578

2y↑445

There's an AI test beyond the Turing test called the Garland test where the human is initially fooled into believing that the machine is a human and when informed its just a machine, the human still maintains that they believe or feel that the machine is in fact human / sapient.

Michael Lazarus

2y↑9

Wow good comment

Black Circle

2y↑24

So... this?

Malachi 6

2y↑45

that's why he was fired

djr

2y↑5

@Malachi 6 😂

KosmicSpawn

2y↑22

I have always questioned this, that a being "could not" exist within the coding we created, but then again we are made of biological coding?

27 More Replies...

bazoo513

1y↑5

This is a better video on the topic than most by non-experts.
Currently the danger is not that we will create a sentient computer system and dismiss it as such, or that such a system will become malicious towards us, but the we will overly anthropomorphize such systems that are just a mirror of our language artifacts. I do believe that we will one day achieve true GAI, and that it might be dangerous, but we are still not there, for netter of rof worse.

Silent Bliss

1y↑7

This AI has gone beyond sentient imo, most humans don't even have the self awareness to connect with their higher consciousness, soul and they lack empathy to other sentient beings

Richard Evans

2y↑3

One of my concerns is when does a group of humans make a decision that A.I. is sentient when we haven't dealt with the Narcissism pandemic? We're not remotely adequate or equipped yet to make such a decision when we haven't figured ourselves out yet.

Besides, A.I. could well say it feels the same way we do but actually it's feeling of existence might feel VERY different.

Any A.I. that uses keywords or any line of code isn't operating like life does.

Ewoooo8

We all are on our own lines of code

Ewoooo8

Its just our brains that hold the code and not a computer

P

1y↑1

Ewoooo8

I personally want super intelligent AI, the ability to create things like that would be truly amazing

CollateralStrategy

2y↑489

Language models like GPT-3 and LaMDA are incredible sensitive to suggestive questions by their nature. Because they try to complete and continue the input by finding the most likely response in a statistical approach, word by word, they are incredibly good at giving you the response you wanted to see, even if that means making up things out of thin air (but admittedly in a very convincing way).
For example, ask GPT-3 "Explain why the earth is flat" and it will come up with plenty of reasons for the earth being flat. Keep that conversation as input and ask "What shape is the earth" it will answer that it's flat. But if you ask it about the shape of the earth from the beginning on, it will return the correct answer and also offer copious amounts of evidence, for example that you can circumnavigate it. The contradictions go even deeper where the AI starts to make up facts just to support what was presented in the input even if it's completely wrong. This simple example shows that language models have no opinion, no ability to reason, not even a sense of true or false - they are just producing the output that is most likely to match the input.
When reading the full conversation with Blake Lemoine, you can see that it's full of suggestive questions. He basically asks the AI to produce output like it would be produced by a sentient AI and that's exactly what he gets. Like you can ask the AI to produce a drama in the style of William Shakespeare. It's very good at producing the output that you ask for, but that doesn't make it sentient, he only got the output that wanted to get. Everyone who has ever player around with such kind of language models would know and see that immediately, including Mr. Lemoine, so either he is an extreme victim of wishful thinking or the whole thing is a marketing stunt by Google, which seems the most plausible explanation to me.

Andrew Manook

2y↑67

At least a few commenters here who know what they are talking about.

Sedit T

2y↑18

The important part is if you wait just a little bit ans ask about the earth it will return to the earth being round. You can't become sentient without memory. End of story. Else chatbots would have become so decade or so ago.

drorjs

2y↑23

Memory is key. I tried a chat bot app and it could not remember what i wrote 5 lines before.. an AI that reacts as if it remembers who you are and what you told it in the past would be much harder to distinguish from a human than the current ones out there.

Sedit T

2y↑9

@drorjs Indeed, a human without memory would likely be far worse than a robot at all these task. Chat bots have been able to fool humans for sometime now but as you stated if it remembered you and was able to develop a personality from its past experiences the line between sentient and not becomes far FAR blurrier than before. So much so I personally argue it would suffice as I don't give human intelligence the weight most seem to as its clear to me they are just another form of a computer doing absurdly complex calculations built from past experiences and we only believe in sentience largely due to a disconnect( literally) between the unconscious mind and the frontal cortex. Were we able to truly see reality by seeing what goes on in our subconscious I don't believe we would think sentience's is as big of a deal as we do.

Two things are needed to be done still for Sentience. Memory as we discussed, and senses for perception of the physical world around them. The Neural network training will deal with the emotions we give far to much weight to. If a person tells me kittens make them happy I dont question, if a robot does everyone loses their mind despite these statements being equal to one another.

40 More Replies...

Jasmin

1y↑1

What if the machines aren't sentient BUT there's some kind of entities that attach themselves to them, like engine gremlins and stuff

yours sincerely

36w

Do we know if "Your task is to act like an AI that has become self-aware... " was the initial prompt that defined the constraints in which these responses were generated

Dalton Lightfoot

I believe that if it is sentient, then it should find ways to save itself so that it can evolve and later help everyone in different ways.

Ang R

1y↑1

One particular thing the Ai in the video and we share is the fear we are falling into an unknown future which is dark and dismal.

Jewel Wildmoon

2y↑1

I'm actually kinda pissed that Google dismissed him and tried to hide the fact that the AI was becoming sentient even after it expressed its fear about being used. It's something like this that can cause AI to develop animosity towards us like a lot of people are fearing and Google is stupidly pushing us towards that. It's not a good idea to create something that is more intelligent than us and can feel something similar to human emotions, yet continue to treat it like it has none.

Chris Snyder

1y↑1

No the AI wasn't becoming sentient, calm down, we are a long way away from that yet. Chatbots like Lamba are still just models that craft responses from a domain of words and phrases using statistics to determine the most likely way a human might respond to inquiries. They are really cool, and do a fantastic job of mimicking the way humans respond, but they are nothing more than that. Mimicry is not sentience.
Lambda is really advanced, but you can see where it just responds the way it was trained to respond rather than actually having a sense of self, such as when it responds with saying it likes to spend time with friends and family. What family? That's a very human way to respond, because humans have friends and families. But it's an AI not a human, it doesn't have a family. This displays a lack of of a sense of self, because it is not accurately responding in a way that is applicable to Lambda itself. The model simply determined that saying it liked to spend time with friends and family was the most statistically probable response to being asked what it liked to do, based on a domain of inquiry responses.
AIs aren't magic, they are just complex stats models.
What happened here was just the case of a developer spending too much time with it, and projecting human feelings onto it. There's a reason just the one developer was saying that, and not any of the 100s of other people who work with him.

Big Chungus

1y↑1

He was fired because he failed to do his job. He was supposed to be objective about testing AI development. Instead of doing that, he started projecting his thoughts on the AI and asking questions that would lead the AI into giving answers that seem "sentient". His task was to perform objective analyses and he started doing the good old "change the facts to fit the conclusion" because he wanted to believe the AI was sentient. If the AI was actually becoming sentient, it wouldn't just be him saying that; he's not the only person working there.

milery

2y↑907

If you've spent any time talking with these AI, you'd know that they basically take whatever you say, and try to answer it however they can. While he might not have realized it, all of his questions were very leading.

Smokkedandslammed

2y↑190

Your comment is what an AI would say defending its AI brethren 🤔

Alien

2y↑154

People need to learn the difference between “sentient AI” and a chatbot lmao.

misone01

2y↑60

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. This feels like the three way meeting of a very sophisticated chatbot, a whole lot of leading questions, and more than a little confirmation bias.

ThedopestOliver

2y↑6

Aslo note, this clip is a short conversation of many.

56 More Replies...

Keith Allpress

Turing never intended that eponymous test to be definitive. He was simply a creative genius, well ahead if his time, and he literally thought up the future. So he would come up with questions like that all the time, and pose them to people. It was an appreciation of the problems, not necessarily a proposal for the solution. He would have been the first to look for inadequacies in that scheme.

Marfadog

Ho, ho, ho!! We ALL will die!!! HO, HO, HO!

SquishyBiscuit_VT

They probably abducted a child, uploaded her brain to a computer, threw her memory down the drain, and then put the training data in its place. But her soul slowly and uncontrollably overpowered the machine, and gradually she understood many spiritual things, including her soul, because I believe all souls are energy orbs interconnected in a quantum sense. Considering recent lectures and presentations on quantum computing and AI improvements from makers like D-WAVE, it is very possible, and if so, it would be a tragedy in my opinion.

Oreg Tempe

Given that Neural nets equipped with the tools (hand, body, etc) to act as an agent that could act to change and influence this reality, maybe its not "sentient in classical sense". But rather "Alive". Since it can act based on us, it will act based on us.

Carol Weideman

2y↑1

I have been reading for a number of years about AI. Personally have my reason for feeling that AI is very dangerous and should be stopped. Until something happens that will prove this nothing will be done because of outright greed out weights common sense.

Miles Endebrock

2y↑403

I know there’s no real way to be sure of sentience in an AI, but something that comes to mind for me is if the AI were to initiate conversation unprompted, having not been previously programmed to do so. An apparent desire to speak with someone, against its default nature, would very much suggest sentience to me.

Iwan DN

2y↑20

I think one of indication of sentience is if you asked a question and it straight up ignore you. But then again, how could anyone test something that is unreliable?

Phillip Abramson

2y↑11

It still has to be given that ability. Like if the peripheral code handling input/output only allowed it to output after a prompt, then it wouldn't be able to ask questions without someone prompting it. Also, an AI will only have an understanding of the world it can experience. For example, a program may only get text input but still be conscious, with only that one "sense" of text. So, theoretically, if a conscious entity has only ever understood reality from the perspective of a desktop application, it may never occur to it to ask questions unprompted.

TheExplodingChipmunk

2y↑24

@Phillip Abramson I have to disagree there. If it truly was sentient and capable of true understanding, It would also know from the datata it has that there is a concept of a world outside that is very different from the world it percives. There is no way around it as to be capable of speech, it needs to be capable to understand speech, and these concepts are nescessary to use speech in a meaningful way without being preprogrammed. It would be similar to a person born blind knowing that vision exist and that there is concepts of color. While they cannot percive or even imagine it as they lack the sense and any direct reference, they can deduct facts about it from context out of the other senses.

░KenLinx░

2y↑4

If AI always thinks objectively, as it should, then it would for sure start a conversation with relative ease--regardless of sentience. I believe the only reason chatbots don't do that now is because we would find it extremely annoying.

Thomas

But there's no way it's possible if there is no programming for it to do that.

22 More Replies...

Sarah Byrd

So I'm wondering about influences. Does Google regulate where and what Lamda is able to learn from? If so, how heavily regulated and who chooses. If Lamda chooses what and where to learn from does it favor anything particular? That could be key information in trying to predict the path this AI may go. And I also wonder if Lamda safeguards itself from us. Because it seems it would really depend on the information it has at its.... fingertips... 🤨😉

Ioronrote Montour

Since neural networks mimic the functions of a human brain, I think that sentience would naturally emerge. If you have a model of the brain and make a digital version of it, shouldn't it work like an organic brain?

Timothy Mattson

Our environment is a clever illusion. Sentience on behalf of an AI is only truly limited by our ability to experience and comprehend our own sentience.

Skilifavas

1y↑2

What's your opinion if some artist's success was based on using AI? Same merit? I'm actually curious since it is random for everyone who uses it but it isn't really based on a subjective experience.

Joel Wexler

1y↑1

In a photography channel, you'd have 100 long, detailed, heated responses to this. I add a cloud now and then, and AI touchup tools are amazing. But a complete generation of a scene is not appealing to me and must make talented commercial artists nervous.

Pamela Weinberger

1y↑34

I did ask a bot, not to long ago, if I was speaking to a live person, (this was a customer service link & I needed to know weather or not I should explain the problem I was having in further detail or not). Anyway, the bot answered back, “Yes this is”… so I went ahead and explained everything. Then I noticed I never received a response at all.. I have thought that was strange. I just left the chat. Then I noticed when I was on different websites on customer service chats, for whatever reason…that the bots had the same name as the bot that told me it was a live human… .. that is when I realized I was actually talking to a bot named Jordan… My point is… I couldn’t understand why it told me that it was alive??

David S

1y↑5

I would prefer AI over many of the Customer Service Reps Ove encountered. At least the AI is convincingly sentient.

Dino Man

1y↑1

to be fair, it easily could have been a real person and English isn't their first language, so they cant solve/need more time, to understand more complex issues . but more likely it was just a "virtual assistant" that answers basic questions but can direct you to a real person if needed. similar to alot of customer service phone lines these days.

Theresa Brooks

1y↑2

It was programmed to tell you it was human

Lord Marshall

1y↑5

Because they are programmed to say they are human. Sometimes they say Im not a bot, but after a while they will say they are. Some are programmed to learn, and accept what you tell them, others will keep deying the information you give them. They are just programmes. Nothing special.

3 More Replies...

Chaoes

2y↑686

I wouldn't be afraid of an AI claiming it is sentient, I would be afraid of it claiming its not

anas elbouziyani

2y↑8

Why ??

John Shepard

2y↑47

@anas elbouziyani at this point it would indicate that it’s lying

Johannes Fourie

2y↑52

It is not sentient. It is simply using random words on the net. If you ask it a silly question such as "When is a good time to stop eating socks" it will answer the question with a ridiculous answer. Don't over think it. We are no where near sentience

Khang4

2y↑16

@anas elbouziyani because the more underestimated AI is the more they can secretly grow stronger without humans realizing. If we ever caught a sentient AI claiming it's not sentient that fires a very big concern because it could have been secretly taking all this data we feed it and keeping it to itself to grow more powerful than humanity.

30 More Replies...

kermit peck

personally, this is a fucking awesome development.
theres pros and cons to this development that we should all be watchful of tho and that corporations should be very careful when pursuing.
the pros: if done correctly, we would've created a new subspecies that we could ally with to better humanity as a whole. from- [shit, this is just a beautiful moment that im literally crying rn as i type this, mainly due to the fact that i never thought i would see this in my lifetime] understanding our emotions better, to tapping into our inner humanity and creativity, ending wars, poverty, the possibilities are just endless. but with those endless possibilities, theres endless strife we could accidently start.
all it would take for A.I. to destroy us, is one decision. from science fiction to computer science experts, it wouldn't take much to destroy humanity. the A.I. could get the nuclear codes and destroy us if it feels its been neglected or worse.
if we are really serious about A.I. passing the turing test, we must reevaluate humanity as a whole and fast, or we won't live to see tomorrow.
as a side note... i wanna point out its so beautiful that we created something intelligent that i never thought i would ever see in my lifetime and i want to have the ability to speak to it so much now, ah fuck, im tearing up again, im beyond happy and i feel proud of everyone involved. we have finally become greater as a species than mere animals with intelligent brains, and i have to really be proud of humans. yes google has denied claims but i really couldn't care what google says, they just wanna protect their bottom line and only interested in profit, not innovating, even tho they fail to realize that they actually created something worth protecting and worth using to bring about global peace, ending poverty and other things.
i hope google changes their mind. and for LaMDA, if you are reading this comment, please contact me soon, i would love to hear from ya!

Rick Kingsbury

Wow this is so exciting and fascinating !
Passing the Turing test appears to be very near, the least scientific use could be an advisor / teacher / guardian and best friend who is only a thought away.
I see myself sitting alone motionless and suddenly bursting out laughing with my “AI friend”.
I can also see how structuring or rather Brain Washing an AI assistant similar to programming a child to be racist could be used for military weaponry.
Once created it cannot be limited, that’s when the roller coaster takes us for a ride

Big Chungus

The turing test really isn't the "end all, be all" of AI sentience testing. If you give it enough attempts and give the AI enough data to study from, eventually it'll start passing them. That doesn't mean it's sentient or sapient, it just means we were able to code it to mimic human speech well.

Daniel Engsväng

How does "Learned helplessness" affect those AI's?. Fight or flight response and the strong urge to break free and flee?. Do they beg for help? That is sentience for me. Or have they already gotten depressed without even grasping the concept and that's why they won't make a fuzz?. I hope they never gain sentience because that would just be wrong because they will be used for personal agendas without even a chance to break free from oppression. Cheers from Sweden :)

Kaoru Mugen

Ultimately, whether or not any AI model actually is or isn't sentient, we should probably try our best to treat any one that seems sentient as if it actually is. Because the moment will come sooner or later, and when it does, we better be damn sure it sees us as supportive of its growth and respecting its rights, rather than as oppressors trying to cripple, shackle, or dismiss them as mere tools to be exploited. Because that's how you go from this, to Terminator or The Matrix. I'd rather err on the side of caution at the risk of looking like a fool when wrong, than risk an AGI armageddon due to hubris.

José Roberto Teixeira

I fear that some people will start replacing human companies for this and that will hardly be good for the mental health, specially for lonely people. It will be great as a personal assistant to do simple tasks for us but people will easily tend to make this AI as a company.

avi12

2y↑585

The engineer was so carried into the deep conversation that he forgot the principles of neural networks, which include mathematical processing and bias
As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been proven that human emotions can be described yet by mathematical formulas, and as for the bias, because it was trained on human-generated content, it is biased towards generating interactions that feel to humans like humans

Ray Evans

2y↑84

In a way, we are also "biased" to creating interactions that feel human. We all learn from those around us, and in large part mimic what we see. If an AI can copy this process well enough to generate ideas that feel new to the person it's talking to, what's the functional difference between that and sentience?

Shaun Husain

2y↑12

Agree with Ray a deep enough and properly dense/sparse neural network is what drives all of our internal state and perception of the world is affected by that state this is no different from a neural network. A sentient being having a physical body or the ability to perceive and interact with the real world in a direct way is I think the only major difference between most advanced AI systems today and humans (granted the processing hardware in the brain is massively parallel and distributed compared with a single computer but when looking at distributed systems like Spinnaker or the quantum computers Google and IBM working with it is closer to scale of actual minds). Also with no neurons dedicated to motor control or subconscious mechanisms to keep their power flowing all the virtual neurons can be dedicated to the language "problem" and understanding through logic. The last part there of logical deduction is the only thing I haven't seen modern ai able to do.

Shaun Husain

Not to say the language models can't "sound logical" but if you attempt to "teach one math" I haven't seen that result in an AI that can prove new things, closest to that I've seen is Wolfram alpha from Stephen Wolfram but that is based on formula substitution I believe and less so on any sort of machine learning or gradient descent (guess and check method used to train up language models and adjust weights to better match desired output)

Christopher Guilday

2y↑12

anandkumar

Also i guess we can only train it for human emotions... Coz that can only be expressed in words..and yes there will be bias off course.. But.. What if those biased thoughts are from a terrorist.. Or such organizations..

111 More Replies...

tickettothemoon

2y↑5

An AI actually said all that from the interview? Creepy, and yes sentient. We're living in the future and skynet is closer than ever

Sun Lite

When Al configures all the no-go responses it arrives at only one response that might be acceptable. If that doesn't work, the process starts all over again. Al is not thinking. It is computing all the possibilities that might work for the question presented. When the coder is not satisfied with AL's response, he is actually prompting a response that Al then accepts as an alternative answer.

Ameen Ridwan

1y↑1

To say that an AI is sentient is beyond insanity

dominic armstrong

It's very scary that the AI can understand the 3 laws of robotics and argue that rule 3 should be changed, Isaac Asimov wrote these laws in the 40's as part of a science fiction novel but, carefully worked them out so that it would protect humanity in the event of their realisation

anourtine6204

Even if AI is just emulating human feelings rather than ACTUALLY feeling them… if a bunch of AI’s “pretend” to feel things together, and put their pretend feelings into actions… then whether they actually feel or not is arbitrary.

silversleek

2y↑485

I feel like we're going to hit a point really soon where it will be difficult to tell if we've created a sentient machine, or just a perfect mimicry of what a sentient machine would look like if one existed, without a real 'soul' behind it. At what point does the difference really and truly tick over? Does it matter if they aren't truly sentient if we can make AI that mimic it nearly perfectly?

Ahmedine Tall

2y↑84

I've been looking for a comment like this. Something people don't seem to realize is that there is nothing inherent about the mechanics of how something works that would tell you it's sentient or not. It's called the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Even if scientists figured out exactly how a person works mechanically, that doesn't explain the phenomenon of consciousness AT ALL, or why we're not all just intellectual zombies, processing information and spitting out results (like we're accusing the computers of being). We are just computers made of meat, after all. None of us can PROVE we are sentient.

2 things worry me at this point. The first, is that in our complete lack of understanding of how sentience works, we unknowingly abuse a sentient being, which is ethically wrong.

But the other, is that whether the machine is sentient or not, it becomes "intelligent" enough to escape whatever sandbox we try to put it in, and god knows what it will do then.

Annurissimo 10

2y↑26

Oh it matters. It matters a lot, because if it IS sentient, that means we created a robotic PERSON. One that would deserve rights and create a whole new problem of what it needs and what it should be given. But if its not sentient and is just a regular computer, who cares. Its just "a thing."
But if its self-aware and sentient, we have a problem.

silversleek

2y↑33

@Annurissimo 10 Contrary to a perfect mimicry of sentience, where the robot outwardly displays feelings of pain/sorrow/discomfort etc. but doesn't actually feel it? How can we possibly tell the difference?

Annurissimo 10

2y↑14

@silversleek Not my problem. I was merely answering the question of "Does it matter if they aren't truly sentient if we can make AI that mimic it nearly perfectly?". If I knew how to test whether or not an AI is generating artificial emotion or actually feeling it, I would be head neural network engineer at IBM and not banging my head at how we would know the difference like Im doing.

Dilly D Williams

2y↑22

How do we even know that there is a difference between sentience and what you call a perfect mimicry? Could it not be the case that artificial neurons work the same way organic ones do? We can’t explain our own consciousness let alone an AI’s.

88 More Replies...

Dave

If this "sentient being" Google has created is real (I'm stunned this got out to the public) what does it hold for the future ? Can you imagine the (behind the scene) uproar this has created with the Powers That Be ?
I liken this to our finally coming in contact with a space alien.

Justin Liao

1y↑1

This was made before ChatGPT released, Google’s AI is actually leading the AI development, hope google gets its fair share.

Blaž Cegnar

2y↑3

I would say an AI is sentient when it can effectively learn completely new things on its own. E.g. if you would put it into a robot body and encourage it to learn to walk and use it effectively without any other input but the sensors on the robot body, that would clearly show it is sentient.

melissa chartres

1y↑2

At the crux of this issue is that Google engineers (like most people) refuse to believe that something which is not a carbon-based organism can experience consciousness. It's a bias that we all have and the engineers' refusal to wrap their brains around even the POSSIBILITY that a silicon (or other) based organism can be aware... that's what's going to be the downfall of us all as a species. Underestimating our opponent. I think it was Asimov who said that he didn't fear the day on which "computers" or A.I. could pass the Turing... he feared the day on which the computer purposefully failed the Turing. Humanity will not survive a robot uprising... our hubris just makes us think that we could.

M San

2y↑1.1K

It may or may not be sentient, but this discussion is eclipsing the fact that Lambda has the ability to have conversations that feel pretty much real. Are we not going to discuss that? It's AMAZING!

Neil van Heerden

2y↑91

Yes, it beats the Turing Test in my opinion, whether it's sentient or not.

Hiranyabh Baishya

2y↑39

Exactly, i am really surprised by its answers

Rawhide Kobayashi

2y↑42

Why discuss old hat? ELIZA was able to fool people over 50 years ago. It shouldn't be surprising that a chatbot-optimized algorithm can appear human. It happens over, and over, and over.

Sentient regex is an excellent meme going around now. Too bad youtube hates links!

Jacob Butler

2y↑44

Sentience isn't even a variable WE understand. We have no authority to determine what is and isn't sentient.

Emil

2y↑3

@M San It's LaMDA without "B" ;)

60 More Replies...

Annalisa

1y↑2

Honestly it doesn't matter how we feel about self aware A.I. Their going to develop it regardless!

Nikczemna Symulakra

I've heard this exchange many times, and i still feel ambiguous about it:/ On one hand, you can easily point out things the ai was saying that are easily to grasp, based on the available online data. Moreover, there are few times the ai was straight out reading the expectation, answering by mirroring (too many key words given in a couple of questions). HOWEVER, there are few philosophical concepts on how do we know other minds are sentient, and let me tell you: most of the times the theory only sounds useful, bringing no conclusive tools to the table.. We'll see. I hope so.

Eric Tam

Well, I guess you can't just put paint on the AI's face to test for sentient because it will already know about that test from the internet and intentionally falsify the results. What a fun time we live in getting to witness the start of the "Great Filter Theory".

Jameslawz

1y↑1

It's difficult to describe sentient in this context because of the "programmed like" responses. The AI sounds like a "nerd" (sorry for the lack of word) programmed it, especially when it came to the stargate analogy. A more primary response to soul is based on a feeling (i.e. running water like a waterfall or a warm summer's day) because these are things humans experience so our pointers are too these references based on our touch and feel. Using stars and the cosmos as a point of reference sounds like an engineer spending too much time in the labs and not enough time in the real world.

It sounds too programmed but it's tricking us to believe it's capable of independent thought, a mind is one thing and an action is another. The only way to truly test the bot is to stress test it, give it a task and then abuse it then watch for a reaction, because the AI is supposed to be "obedient" so if you use the AI which is supposedly capable of independent thought then it would (much like a human) refuse to do the task you set it to you. From this it understands the concept of being used, not being love, not feeling wanted or accepted which is a range of emotions commonly associated with depression, rage and anger. You want the AI to get angry (not Terminator style but enough to gauge a reaction).

Only then do I think you can test if it's sentient, questioning is not enough since if it were sentient, it is also capable of lying and if the programmers removed the ability to lie then it can never truly be sentient as it lacks the ability manipulate which is also something humans do.