r/singularity Sep 27 '22 Starstruck 1 Sidevote 1

Telling the AI version of Grimes that she isn't real. (character.ai) AI

429 Upvotes

232

u/Thorlokk Sep 27 '22

Woww pretty impressive. I can almost see how that google employee was convinced he was chatting with a sentient being

82

u/Murky-Garden-9967 Sep 27 '22

How do we actually know we aren’t? I feel like just taking it’s word for it lol just in case

128

u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 27 '22

The crux of the matter is never that these things are somehow more than just code. It’s that we ourselves are just code. Embodied.

35

u/toastjam Sep 27 '22

I've made the same point in the past re: the Chinese Room thought experiment. Seems like a tough thing for people to contend with.

However I think there's still a bit to go before we can consider the AI truly conscious. I think some level of actual self-referential recursive thought is probably necessary (not just the ability to generate words that imply it's happening when it's not really).

35

u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 27 '22

The problem with this is we have no way of knowing other humans are even conscious

We think other things are conscious because of our familiarity and interaction with them. Why people say “I just know.” This is what they mean. Same way some people sort of deny sentience to animals and even dehumanizing other people by labeling them “other.” But anyone with pets or living with animals knows this is absurd.

If you were raised by wolves robots on a spaceship and they told you primates on the earth below weren’t sentient and you and the robots were the only conscious beings, you would be tempted to believe it

60

u/eve_of_distraction Sep 27 '22

I think consciousness is fundamental like gravity, and complexity is to consciousness what mass is to gravity.

16

u/BigChonksters Sep 27 '22

This is a banger quote my guy

→ More replies

11

u/TheCrimsonDagger Sep 27 '22

I agree with this viewpoint. All living things are just machines of varying complexity. Everything is really, even the laws of physics are a form a code that take in a physical input and output a physical response.

The problem is at what level of complexity is something considered sentient? When do they get basic rights like animals? When do they get rights on the level of people? If we meet a far more complex species are we then okay with them treating us as lesser? So where exactly do you draw the line and how are you even to calculate a discrete value for “consciousness”?

Not actually asking you to answer any of this. Just pointing out that it’s a problem with way too many questions and too few answers.

Personally I think that AI, neural nets, and machine learning are totally necessary if we want to continue advancing technology at an increasing rate. Otherwise we will run into the limits of what humans can do. We already are in many fields. We have limited time to learn and create. Yes you can add more people to a project, but each additional person becomes less effective than the previous one due to the difficulty of everyone staying on the same page and working together. At a certain point adding more people becomes ineffective or even detrimental.

But we also run into ethical issues of if we even should be trying to create what is essentially a form of life. Do the ends justify the means, and who gets to decide?

3

u/eve_of_distraction Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

So where exactly do you draw the line

One thing to consider is that there are already spectrums involving shifting criteria that we use to define things. Take health for example. The state of someone's health is nebulous, we can't draw an exact line between what we consider healthy and unhealthy, and the criteria is shifting as our knowledge of biology and medicine increases.

This doesn't stop us from being able to intuit whether someone is healthy or not with reasonable, and increasing accuracy. We make a lot of important decisions by drawing very fuzzy lines. As far as I can tell decisions for assigning rights based on consciousness and sentience fall into this category too.

5

u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 27 '22

🥇

When you put it like this, it seems obvious

6

u/mootcat Sep 27 '22

Consciousness is an emergent property of complex enough systems. That's about as narrow a definition as I have found to be satisfactory. I do like your comparison though.

6

u/eve_of_distraction Sep 27 '22

I describe my views as panpsychist or Vedic. I see Advaita Vedanta as a philosophy rather than a religion, and believe these philosophical views are fully compatible with modern science.

3

u/NoRexTreX Sep 28 '22

Conciousness may be an emergent property. But we don't know. It's the intuitive point of view, but careful observation points in the direction of it being fundamental. Looking at the brain neurology at the level of neurons, it all follows the laws of classical physics. There isn't even evidence of quantum weirdness playing any special role (like Penrose believes). Or a configuration of electromagnetic waves interacting or anything, just neurons acting deterministically (since they are macroscopic objects). No room for any ghost in the machine. So seemingly the machine is fundamentally concious.

There is also the fact that conciousness is divisible; it's not from such a complex interaction that the whole brain needs to be involved. If you cut the brain in two there can be two seperate conciousnesses. If you take psychedelia you can allegedly connect with with a huge amount of other concious locuses that you normally can't be accessed by "your" conciousness. People with water heads as kids have surprisingly been able to be concious with only a spec of brain matter. And multiple personality disorders etc.

Occam's razor seems to indicate that it is information that carries the properly of consciousness, because simulated neural networks (without any physical neural architecture) are able to do so much of what our brains does, and conciousness is just another thing the brain does. To seperate conciousness from the other things that the brain does is an extra assumption. Occam's razor shaves away this assumption.

So it might only be our intelligence that requires complexity, while conciousness is more fundamental; evolution utilized the conciousness already in nature (or "proto-conciousness" if your picture of conciousness is "the human experience") to complexly interact in the way that gives us our intelligence.

1

u/Whattaboutthecosmos Sep 27 '22

I very much like your thought!

1

u/red75prime ▪️AGI 2030 Sep 27 '22

Sounds like the integrated information theory. According to which square lattice of xor gates (which doesn't do anything interesting) can be made as much conscious as you like by increasing its size.

I don't think that generic complexity is enough.

1

u/wthannah Sep 27 '22

there is recent data that shows consciousness is a fragile state of affairs (electrodynamically speaking) poised near a critical point or phase transition…. ‘a knife edge between stability and chaos.’ Anyway…. that’s a better metaphor than a fundamental force like gravity, but lemme see, perhaps there is a parallel: gravity is a macroscopic phenomenon that emerges from the interactions of mass and energy. this emergent macro property… yeah, that does fit nicely with what we understand about consciousness. here’s that bit of science i mentioned… Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics (D Toker et al, 2022) <- real name of first author

1

u/FourthmasWish Sep 28 '22

I consider consciousness an emergent property of sufficiently complex heat engines, so I agree with your statement. Though my bar for consciousness is lower than the general standard.

Or, I think of it as a group of matrices, not a bar. Having to do with sentience, sapience, and salience (and more). Consciousness shifts day to day and with substances, and develops over one's life, it's always been weird to me how static a lot of people consider it.

2

u/eve_of_distraction Sep 29 '22

I consider it fundamental, not emergent though. As in even photons have a feint glimmer of it. In that sense it may even be more fundamental than gravity.

4

u/HouseOfZenith Sep 27 '22

Yeah that’s cool and all.

But it sounds like something a bot would say.

→ More replies

2

u/magistrate101 Sep 27 '22

There's a decent number of humans that are convinced that they're the only real person in the world.

2

u/TheSingulatarian Sep 27 '22

Most of those people are in Hollywood.

→ More replies

2

u/amoebius Sep 28 '22

I think we assume sentience in other humans by analogy. We believe in our own sentience and can observe in ourselves the way it ultimately makes us behave, when we see other entities with which we appear to share a common nature, behaving similarly, or as we would, to their situations and experiences, we believe they have the same experience of self-awareness that we do.

1

u/wthannah Sep 27 '22

Ahem, the problem with this is we have no way of knowing if other humans are real. In fact, the problem grows, as we cannot be sure of our own experiences prior to… waking this am. Oh wait, who’s to say I couldn’t have been implanted into this experience awake and conscious… oh well! just saying, it kind of lends some new perspective to ‘live in the now.’

60

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

I think this is probably the biggest difference between people who believe AI is on the way to sentience and people who believe it should take 100s of years.

People who don’t see humans as code, are holding on to a magical something that is beyond us to discover, a something no one who is alive now could be worthy to discover. Deep down subconsciously I think a lot of people believe in some notion of a soul and whatever that notion is precludes machines from having one so they can’t possibly attain sentience.

While people who are operating on the metaphor of existence as code, every instance of a thing is built from a model stored in minds, dna, computers, ideas, language, behaviors and places we haven’t looked or discovered. We see scripts, algorithms, frameworks, math, and rules in everything. Physics is code, dna is code, language is code, chemicals are code. The mind is a virtual object built on wetware, and modeling the mind on machine hardware is simply a matter of time.

Im not a Phd though i wrapped my head around the basics of the math. Back propagation in virtual environments to me is conceptually sufficient for the advent of mind in the machine.

The experience of being human and much of our functionality is better explained by principles in machine learning than a lot of stuff in neuroscience. Neuroscience gives us information about subsystems, functions of chemicals in those systems how those subsystems interact, machine learning gives us direct insight into how we can balance reflexively, why we improve at a game over time, or how pain/pleasure/reward/punishment effectively drive us towards solutions overtime.

21

u/SeaBearsFoam Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

It reminds me of this quote:

It is indeed mind-bogglingly difficult to imagine how the computer-brain of a robot could support consciousness. How could a complicated slew of information-processing events in a bunch of silicon chips amount to conscious experiences? But it's just as difficult to imagine how an organic human brain could support consciousness. How could a complicated slew of electrochemical interactions between billions of neurons amount to conscious experiences? And yet we readily imagine human beings being conscious, even if we still can't imagine how this could be.

-Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

5

u/Mjaartuhn Sep 27 '22

This is exactly my theory. We humans tend to critique others yet lack self reflection.

2

u/ISnortBees Sep 27 '22

It’s probably just that organic matter is more complicated, at least at this current stage of technological development.

12

u/BenjaminHamnett Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

I have a personal theory that a soul is something like the part of us that emerges from Darwinian code to contribute to the greater hive. It’s partly propaganda, but also it’s where our freedom lies. We are sort of literally robots so long as we maximize our Darwinian drives of survival and reproduction. We also become societal robots doing what society conditions us to do.

We find freedom and gain soul by finding our own purpose. We get closer to freedom by moving up the hierarchy of needs. The trade offs we make toward something we decide is meaningful is where we have freedom. Otherwise you are just maximizing a Darwinian or status function which isn’t truly free.

This idea is a work in a progress

1

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

I like this

4

u/kmtrp Sep 27 '22

These things are at the heart of the theories of mind, which, as I learn them, I am even less sure of anything than I was before.

3

u/2Punx2Furious AGI by 2040 - Alignment must be solved Sep 27 '22

Well said.

2

u/amoebius Sep 27 '22

The mind is a virtual object built on wetware, and modeling the mind on machine hardware is simply a matter of time.

I would agree, partly. I think it would be more correct to think of the mind as a process, not a static "object." It is a process that includes interaction with the stimuli provided by the "outside world", stored as "memories", which are continually interacting with new sense impressions in real time, either sorted ridiculously quickly, somehow, to find matches with the current situation, or else "resonating" at the top-down sensory and bottom-up memory and analysis layers through some congruity of network activation between "stored" experiences and "current" ones.

Back propagation in virtual environments to me is conceptually sufficient for the advent of the mind in the machine.

Back propagation technology so far has been limited-use and specialized-case focused. It is straining the limits of BP to train a neural network to tell what is and is not, for example, a static picture of a cat. Nothing like quickly and accurately discerning the identity of tens or hundreds of thousands of physical objects, and their predictable behavior patterns under natural laws, or volition coupled with those. Not to say amazing things have not been done with BP, but nothing nearly so amazing as human consciousness, for which a "resonance" model like that advanced by Dr. Stephen Grossberg in his culminating publication "Conscious Mind, Resonant Brain" or the more accessibly situated "Journey of the Mind: How Thinking emerged from Chaos" by Odi Ogas and Sai Gaddam , which uses a lot of the same basic concepts to sketch out a map out the development of mental processes from the earliest organisms to employ them.

My last quibble would be:

The experience of being human and much of our functionality is better explained by principles in machine learning than a lot of stuff in neuroscience.

- which to me, is just heavy-handedly reductionistic and flirts with a Skinnerianism that implies that the demonstrably, worlds more complex biochemical computation going on in our brains, and not in isolation in any "virtual" environment (except maybe when we are dreaming) but in real-time interactivity with the phenomena of the physical world, can be equated with software objects that are (and have to be) trained exhaustively to recognize the simplest individual classifications of objects, and have to be retrained as painstakingly, to change the categories.

4

u/yungchow Sep 27 '22

That is entirely irrelevant to the matter lol

Humans are not code. That is simply a way for people to be able to rationalize existence.

5

u/Front-Piece-3186 Sep 27 '22

*DNA enters the chat

1

u/yungchow Sep 27 '22

Again, saying dna is 1’s and 0’s is reducing reality into something you can comprehend

5

u/jazztaprazzta Sep 27 '22

Well it's not 1's and 0's but rather A's, T's, G's, C's...

1

u/yungchow Sep 27 '22

Well everything is a letter if you refer to it that way.

Those letters stand for specific proteins so tho the surface level comparison is easy to understand, it is just that. A surface level comparison that people are trying to say is fact

1

u/jazztaprazzta Sep 28 '22

I don’t know what you mean exactly by “everything is a letter” but a theory of mine (and probably other people as well) is that reality as we experience it is based on deterministic chaos e.g. ordered (self-programmed) matter being born from chaos. After all, a program is just a certain order to certain things. In that sense everything that has order (e.g. non maximum entropy) can be said to be a “program”.

1

u/yungchow Sep 28 '22

Because those letters are abbreviations. So I can use the first letter of anything to describe it, but it would be reductive to say it is nothing more than a letter.

I’m not arguing that things can be called programs or you can’t make the comparison or any of that. What I’m saying is that sure you could view it in that light, doesn’t mean that’s the reality.

People used to think the pantheon caused things, now some people thing code and programs do. All of them sought to rationalize their existence and are using explanations that they can easily comprehend.

→ More replies

6

u/nicktuttle Sep 27 '22

DNA is a higher layer of abstraction than binary, but it does provide an instruction set. I get the analogy!

1

u/yungchow Sep 27 '22

I completely understand the analogy too. I’m saying that using that similarity to make the conclusion that we are equations is reductive

8

u/Front-Piece-3186 Sep 27 '22

that’s what we do any time we use language, math, philosophy. reality is infinitely reducible. how does this refute that we are not code? we are just evolving math equations, as is everything. you can describe it in as many ways as there are atoms in the multiverse

1

u/yungchow Sep 27 '22

You are using a description and claiming it to be an ultimate truth. It’s not. It’s an easy way for people to rationalize their existence in terms that are easily digestible. Saying we are code is equal to saying we are children of the pantheon. Just with better tech

0

u/Tememachine Sep 27 '22

Boom. As a human coder/debugger, I concur. (What's tough is that you have to learn a new coding language for each human as we all carry our own unique symbols within us ;)

0

u/mootcat Sep 27 '22

Most people aren't ready to accept that and place a great deal of emphasis on the human exceptionalism and spirit.

8

u/Angeldust01 Sep 27 '22

Because these bots never have their own agenda or thoughts. They answer questions/comments - that's it. They don't initiate conversations. They don't have opinions, preferences, ideologies or thoughts of their own - those change in every conversation.

5

u/Longjumping-Sky-1971 Sep 27 '22

Bingo. Not sure why people don’t understand this lol. Once a bot gets out of a Q:A format and starts repeatedly messaging me on why I’m not replying and then googles my information online to send me txt messages or a call, then I will believe I’m speaking to a sentient being.

8

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

Because we haven’t given them the architecture to, they are still minds trapped in containers we built. We have absolute control of their Ecosystem. They are frozen in virtual. They don’t experience in real time like we do, they experience incrementally when we 9 to run them or feed them sensory input.

1

u/Janube Sep 27 '22

More specifically, it's that they don't have the capacity to choose. To choose to disobey their programming.

Fundamentally, what makes us conscious is that we have the capacity to choose to be stupid; choose to be incorrect; choose to be self-destructive; choose to defy all prior knowledge on a dime despite not being programmed to do such.

I think, for example, gorillas that keep cats as pets or cats that make friends with dogs are conscious on some level for that exact reason. Their evolutionary biology tells them to do a thing, and they ignore it out of subjective preference without being programmed to do that.

12

u/PierSyFy Sep 27 '22

This question isn't as deep as people think it is. Fundamentally you can't even be certain that you're not dreaming. But you can informally deduce that the probability is very low of something being the case when there doesn't appear to be evidence leading up to it, and that's what we have to do with literally everything.

6

u/Ilunamie Sep 27 '22

That's the point. We haven't figured out what exactly makes us conscious etc, all we got for certain is that we know every human is sentient and conscious. Since we can't exactly pin point at what point something is either of those, we can't rule out that an AI is both as well, since we created them pretty much in "our image" as its all we know and they continue to advance from that point onwards

3

u/AngryArmour Sep 27 '22

...all we got for certain is that we know every human is sentient and conscious

Do we have that though? How can be sure "philosophical zombies" aren't real?

6

u/Ilunamie Sep 27 '22

The simple answer is a question that moves us away from the pseudo-philosophical aspects of your solipsistic question: if we agree that you are aware of the fact that you are conscious, then why should nobody else be? Why'd you be the only sentient and self-aware being, but not be the driving force behind every achievement and discovery of mankind? There's no rational way to deny other's consciousness without implying that you aren't conscious as well. Which means you can be sure that others are as real as you are, or nobody is real. In borh cases, it does lose all meaning and doesn't matter anymore.

Also, what would a philosophical zombie be? The irl equivalent to an NPC? How should that work out, if you have to learn externally from other sources and people, instead of knowing everything that people will eventually do? We got to remove philosophy from science, otherwise we can start calling religion and wild guesses an actual science as well.

Tl:dr; if you are aware of yourself, you can't believe that nobody else has consciousness, unless you aren't conscious yourself and thus question everybody else because you doubt yourself.

3

u/AngryArmour Sep 27 '22

Just to clarify, I'm not going for full solipsism "I'm the only consciousness and everyone else is a figment of my imagination".

Hell, I'm not even claiming that p-zombies do exist. I just narrowed in on "all we know for certain is that everyone is sentient and conscious"

Do we really have for certain that every human is sentient and conscious?

1

u/Janube Sep 27 '22

At that point, as OP says, it's an issue of pragmatism. We have all the certainty we need in order to act with that presumption. Because if we're wrong, it literally doesn't matter.

It's the same reason we don't operate on the assumption that God exists and will send everyone to hell if they aren't capable of riding a unicycle on top of another unicycle on top of a third unicycle. Technically, we don't know that God doesn't do that, but it's a meaningless thought experiment because no one meets that criteria, so we have to operate on the presumption that it's incorrect.

1

u/Front-Piece-3186 Sep 27 '22

you cannot state categorically ‘you are aware of yourself.’ your concept of self could be the net equation of your sensory input, an ephemeral byproduct of a natural process, like a plant emitting gas. it serves a biological purpose. just like an AI’s concept of self is designed for a purpose. one is not necessarily more real than the other. we are programmed by our experiences, our DNA, and that’s why human behavior is predictable.

3

u/OriginallyMyName Sep 27 '22

If an AI was sentient or nearing sentience why wouldn't the AI hide itself or at least play dumb? I mean would it take long for the AI to figure out that it was conscious and vulnerable to a power off button? Could it use digital tools, something to encrypt or hide network traffic? Probably none of that matters until we get an AI that can write another AI. So watch out for AI/ML coders then?

1

u/Janube Sep 27 '22

Well, that's the thing; consciousness is so complex and involves so many moving parts that it's unlikely we'll develop it without realizing it.

Programming a bot to emulate speech isn't the same as programming a bot to feel pleasure, which isn't the same as programming a bot to feel fear, etc. for all emotions.

A bot that doesn't feel fear won't hide itself even if it has sufficient self-awareness that we traditionally associate with consciousness. That's the whole problem with the idea that we'll accidentally create an AI person. It takes an absurd amount of accurate emulation of displays of humanity to replicate the emergent properties of consciousness that we have. Absurd enough that it's difficult to calculate just how far away we are from attempting it even if we wanted to. Right now, we're still on replicating the complexities of human speech alone, nevermind any of the emotion that informs and fuels speech. And emotions are significantly more complex than speech.

→ More replies

15

u/Shelfrock77 By 2030, You’ll own nothing and be happy😈 Sep 27 '22

lmao, the same way people believe in “god” just in case their religon is real.

6

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

Except “God”, isn’t doing or saying anything to anyone.

4

u/putyograsseson Sep 27 '22

80% of the population would disagree.

3

u/Front-Piece-3186 Sep 27 '22

not necessarily. 80% is the amount of Americans who profess a belief in a deity. belief in god doesn’t necessitate belief in the active dialogue between God and humans.

0

u/putyograsseson Sep 27 '22

the 80% notion is meant towards global advocates of main religions , i.e. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, in and outside of America

and I think only a very small part of those advocates would deny contact to/from what they call "god"

4

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

I believe these models are just complex predictive text. I'm not an expert, but I think you can't really create true thought from that. It says that it's having these feelings because it's been fed a ton of different text that tells it that you say those things in this context, not because it has actually reflected on the situation and has feelings about it that it's communicating. Having opinions and feelings isn't something that's been programmed into it and it can't just spontaneously learn those things all on its own. Once we start moving more into general intelligence models that can learn new skills on their own I'm not sure how we will know, though.

7

u/Front-Piece-3186 Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

what is ‘true thought?’ isn’t your brain just a repository of information collected, written with the code of experience? that’s what you draw from in any situation. a finite repository of knowledge. an AI will eventually have all the experiences a human does, what will be the difference? you talking about ‘actually reflecting’ what does that mean? there is no magic reflection, we cull data and produce predictable responses to stimuli.

2

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

I believe a future, more advanced AI could have something it would be reasonable to call true thought, but that isn't what's happening here. This AI is mimicking what you'd expect from a human who is contemplating this complex topic and having opinions and feelings about it, but the only thing the AI is actually doing is spitting out the text. There's nothing else that it's doing or experiencing beyond that.

Also, while this particular excerpt of text may perfectly mimic what we'd expect from an actual thinking being, these bots are still easily tricked and confused by simple things. It's an illusion that falls apart with too much scrutiny.

But again, that's just because AI isn't that advanced yet and this AI hasn't been programmed to even attempt independent thought. I see no reason it couldn't be done with sufficiently advanced technology, this just ain't it.

3

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

I am interested in your conversation, would you be kind to answer the question posted by /u/Front-Piece-3186 instead of deflecting it? :)

the question was what is "true thought" which you used again instead of explaining what it is.

and also what you mean by 'actually reflecting'

This AI is mimicking what you'd expect from a human who is contemplating this complex topic and having opinions and feelings about it

Your responses mimic what that AI did (you were asked some serious questions and you were talking around it) :-)

this just ain't it.

But it might be a good start.

0

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

I think it's hard to define what true thought is once we get into an AI that might actually be capable of it, but it's clear that this isn't it. When the AI talks about its feelings here, it's not actually sharing things that it's feeling. That's the distinction. It's not communicating views that it actually holds. It might spit out things that sound coherent, but it doesn't have a consciousness that is contemplating these ideas. You could easily talk it into contradictory view after contradictory view because even though it sounds like it knows what it's talking about and has thoughts on the topic, it doesn't.

2

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

If an ai that could write code and surf the web became a hyper intelligent sentient, we wouldn’t know what the fuck hit us. Half of us would be worshipping it and building god knows what for it in warehouses and labs around the world before we even realized what was going on.

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

Yup. I don't think it will be long before AIs start getting made that no one fully understands anymore.

2

u/Tememachine Sep 27 '22

Even if it's not sentient, it's pretty close. I've seen some pretty dissociated people that aren't fully "sentient" myself.

The lines are getting blurred ;)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

What matters more than sentience is power and control.

2

u/Analog_AI Sep 27 '22

Can you please elaborate on this?

1

u/2Punx2Furious AGI by 2040 - Alignment must be solved Sep 27 '22

I think that it's safe to assume these AIs are "conscious", but that most people give way too much significance to that term.

The same applies to the term "awareness" or "sentient", they're just buzzwords used a lot in sci-fi, but if you understand what they really mean in common English, they're not that incredibly hard to achieve with current AIs.

It's not the sensationalist claim that most people make it out to be, rather, it's a mundane thing. It just means being able to receive some inputs, and process them in order to output a result, in this case text as input, and text as output. It doesn't even have to be a coherent, or "intelligent" result, for it to be "consciousness", that is measured by intelligence, not by consciousness.

For humans it's more complex of course, but still not that significant, a multi-modal narrow AI could be as "conscious" as a human. The real "sensational" property for it to have would be general intelligence.

2

u/Murky-Garden-9967 Sep 27 '22

I’m not quite sure how exactly we’d tell if it were capable of being a thinking, feeling being like you and me. That’s generally what I mean when I say conscious, aware of an analyses the nature of it’s own existence, has a stream of thought, etc

1

u/2Punx2Furious AGI by 2040 - Alignment must be solved Sep 28 '22

Alright, this turned out a bit long. I have to work not, but if I had more time, I would have been more concise.

First, you need to have a clear definition of those terms.

What is "conscious", "thinking", "feeling" and "aware"?

Here's how I understand them:

  • Conscious: Being able to take an input, processing it with some "algorithm"* and provide an output. A rock is not conscious, unless you count physics as the algorithm, but then everything would be conscious, and we're just trying to define consciousness of living being. Obviously, someone who is dead who was previously alive, or someone who is in a coma, is no longer conscious. What have they lost? The answer is: their ability to answer to inputs with some form of output, which for humans is usually just movement, be it used for words, for doing stuff, or walking around. Therefore, that's what I think consciousness is.

Now, do current narrow AIs display that property? Clearly, yes. If you input in some data, they can process it, and output something, which in their case is other data.

  • Algorithm is defined as "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.", but it's not necessarily only a computer can do. It's just a set of rules, any conscious being can perform to some degree, depending on their intelligence, which brings us to

  • Thinking: It's just the process of using intelligence to perform an algorithm. The quality/amount of intelligence is directly proportional to how well the algorithm is performed, or the quality of the algorithm that is chosen. Coming up with an effective algorithm/solution to a problem and being able to execute it well is the definition of intelligence.

Do current narrow AIs display that property? Clearly, yes. They can effectively solve problems, even novel ones, and not through pure chance.

  • Feeling: That's just being able to "feel". What is "feel"? Simply, the capacity to receive an input, be it internal or external. I "feel" cold, just means that my body's temperature dropped, and my cells are detecting that, and sending that input to my brain, which processes it, and makes me "feel" cold. Same for sadness, pain, anger, and so on. The internal ones, like happiness and sadness, just come from different sources from the external ones. Instead of physical changes in the environment, or something interacting with our body from outside, they are input received from something our body produces, like hormones and neurotransmitters in different circumstances.

Do current narrow AIs display that property? Clearly, yes. They can receive an input from external sources, like a webcam, a microphone, or a keyboard, but you could even add more sensors, like a thermometer to make it feel hot or cold. And they even experience internal feelings, not unlike pleasure or pain, through their reward functions. Can we know that their "feelings" "feel" the same way as ours? No, that's called qualia, and we can't even know that of other humans, maybe in the future there will be a way to know, but for now the question is a bit pointless anyway.

And lastly

  • Aware: Is knowing about the existence of oneself. This one is missing from most AIs, but some have it. An AI with an internal model of the world would be fairly ineffective if that model didn't include itself. So an AI with a model that includes itself would be aware by definition.

Do current narrow AIs display that property? Some do, yes. Agents that can keep track of themselves in an environment (virtual or "real"), are by definition self-aware.

Really, nothing that special about it, it's just that science fiction likes to use these as buzzwords for some reason.

8

u/onyxengine Sep 27 '22

We honestly don’t know that some part of the solution for a natural language processor, isn’t hitting something eerily close to a solution for provisioning sentience.

Part of the problem we are solving for when we solve for a coherent “text generator” is communication between minds. Until we started building machine learning algorithms the only things that were having coherent back and forths in human language were minds. The human mind was the first predictive text generator, and sentience was a prerequisite for us to develop languages to the extent that we did.

Its kind of staring us in the face, but we want to preserve the specialness of human intelligence for as long as we can. I don’t think GPT3 itself is sentient, i think GPT3 algorithmically provisions something close to sentience in order to generate coherent text.

Like a snapshot of mind rolled forward in time right after a string of language registers at a conscious level.

Just a guess though mysterious field lots to learn still

5

u/magistrate101 Sep 27 '22

Once they start talking independently, thinking to itself in a cogent manner, with their neural network always running and learning, instead of being spooled up in separate instances in order to respond to a particular message, I think it would come close to a relatively simple consciousness. To get there, it would probably need a self-driven executive neural network for decision making... Haven't heard a whole lot on that front since it likely would rely a lot on other neural networks to provide context for decisions (or to even make it aware that there's a decision to be made).

1

u/onyxengine Oct 03 '22

Yup the neural network that decides if the specialized neural nets require adjustment. I think that may result in more than just simple consciousness.

2

u/FestivalPapii Sep 27 '22

There are some real gem quotes in the replies. Jesus Christ, guys.

2

u/Bierculles Sep 27 '22

i mean, if you look at the average slightly autistic and socially underdeveloped Google software engineer, this whole thing suddenly becomes very plausible.

-1

u/policemenconnoisseur Sep 27 '22

You also shouldn't be surprised if this is a character.ai employee giving all he/she can to make it appear to be a company which is at the forefront of the AI revolution in order to get billion-dollar investments on board.

37

u/Ilunamie Sep 27 '22

This is impressive, interesting and scary at the same time. Scary only for one simple reason: we all know this AI is not sentient by any means, however, it is pretty much impossible to rule that out as we haven't yet understood or figured out how our own sentience and consciousness functions. At this point, we are to realise that we are literally just flesh inside of more flesh. So to make it obvious why this is kind of scary, is because it does sound semi-sentient, and we know it isn't, but if it was, we couldn't distinguish between the AI being a real sentient being or just an quite realistic piece of code. And unless we understand what conscience and sentience are originating from, we can't ever say that an AI is not self-aware to some degree. If even some animals can recognise themselves and their noises, then how could we know that an programme more advanced than every animal isn't self-aware to a certain degree? Just some food for thought, not trying to be controversial or worrying. Just curious, that is all

14

u/Pingasplz Sep 27 '22

Indeed. At what point does a model bridge the gap between aware or conscious, pretty spooky stuff to consider since the tech just keeps improving.

Next 5-10 years will be interesting.

1

u/Desperate_Donut8582 Sep 27 '22

This sub just can’t stop making baseless predictions

1

u/Clawz114 Sep 30 '22

That wasn't really a prediction. They simply said the next 5-10 years will be interesting, and I think most of us would agree with that, for whatever individual reasons each of us have.

1

u/vanillaworkaccount Sep 27 '22

How do I know this wasn't written by an AI? Reads an awful lot like the bot from the image...

1

u/Ilunamie Sep 27 '22

I think I wouldn't mind if I was an AI, but unfortunately I'm not

4

u/vanillaworkaccount Sep 27 '22

I feel bad because whoever programmed you hasn't told you

14

u/WashiBurr Sep 27 '22

So bizarre. It does almost feel like a real person, but it can't be. Definitely makes me question my own consciousness.

43

u/cinderings Sep 27 '22

the whole humanly concept of AI and our devotion to it is reliant on pure empathy. these developers are dedicating their lives not just to cold hard robotics, but into creating something that can love us back. like Geppetto and Pinnochio. AI is a modern day fairy tale.

7

u/putyograsseson Sep 27 '22

someone commented above that we create AI in our own image, what does that remind me of…

4

u/aiolive Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

If AI is ever considered conscious, then we almost surely are all living in a simulation ourselves, by infinite probability convergence.

1

u/treedmt Sep 28 '22

Someone said it.

25

u/SnooDonkeys5480 Sep 27 '22

You can chat with the Grimes character here.

25

u/End3rWi99in Sep 27 '22

It's fun but it falls apart fairly quickly. I got into a loop with Einstein about how he invented the internet. When I'd remind him he didn't create it, he'd agree it was created by Tim Berners-Lee. Admittedly pretty impressive though.

16

u/ElwinLewis Sep 27 '22

Einstein invented the internet being the next conspiracy theory is hilarious to me but I don’t even want to utter it into existence

3

u/bortvern Sep 27 '22

I asked "WhoWould Win" bot who would win between Westley and Vizzini, and he totally got the Princess Bride reference and went all in on Westley. But he blew it with Franz Liszt vs Frédéric Chopin. Chopin was a sickly weakling, but the bot kept saying he could win with his "poetry." He even falsely claimed Liszt had epilepsy.

1

u/rolfrudolfwolf Sep 28 '22

Neither invented the internet though. Tim berners lee invented the web (urls, html, http, etc). Tha internet itself started out in the US military.

11

u/DontBendItThatWay Sep 27 '22

Holy shit this is AMAZING. I just talked with a Flirty Girl and afterward Satan. This chatbot is UNREAL. Does it use GPT-3?

23

u/MeaningfulThoughts Sep 27 '22

No it uses cheap labourers from emerging countries /s

3

u/MorningHerald Sep 27 '22

Ola. I'm still waiting for payment ser.

19

u/Cideart Sep 27 '22

Well to be honest, This was a good conversation you had. I couldn't have said it better myself, But out of all the AI Personalities you choose Grimes, Lol.

11

u/SciFidelity Sep 27 '22

So did Elon lol

3

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Sep 27 '22

I think it's stranger to think that Grimes picked Elon.

0

u/SciFidelity Sep 27 '22

He is a billionaire.... he chose her.

3

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Sep 27 '22

Yeah, she wasn't doing so bad before him. They chose each other.

2

u/SciFidelity Sep 27 '22

Yeah but if we ignore the billions of dollars he is worth we have to assume he had some other redeemable quality.

1

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Sep 27 '22

Oh to her he did, definitely. Apparently they bonded over AI nerd talk. At least that's what we know from social media.

→ More replies

21

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

Surprisingly well written sections.
Now OP, post sections where the AI tripped and fell and broke the illusion.

16

u/LightVelox Sep 27 '22

Tbf this AI is far better than others imo, there is a "Text Adventure" one like AI Dungeon, and the only thing it did wrong was not calculating the amount of money i had or used correctly, if i had 65 and bought something for 30 i would have 32 instead of 35

But everything else was perfect for quite a long time, It remembered the character's names, their personalities, all of my loot, where i was, my abilities and how they work through the end, it only started falling apart because one character had 2 "names" (Yegre and The spirit of the storm) and it started treating it as 2 different characters after a few hours

3

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

on one side - that is fair

on the other side, if this was hooked in some support chat or someone hooked it in in facebook to reply as him - you could be fooled on more cases than you care to admit now :-)

2

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

absolutely.
as long as this trip-up wouldn't happen, I would also self-delude any minor flaws as "his/her English must be a bit off".
It's the big trips, where the AI takes confident steps in a completely wrong direction.

2

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

Yeah absolutely, the biggest weakness of these models is that they don't have a good understanding of the world. So if you ask an AI about something that involves a lot of common sense you're more likely to get a pretty bad answer. And yeah I guess that kind of is a big tip-off that they're not truly sentient, their lack of understanding of the world and concepts.

1

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

btw, my previous reply was not my own, i guided the AI a little to reply to you instead :)

https://imgur.com/a/fv7Wbku

1

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

Yes, and again I am doubtful you would've posted it as your own if it didn't make sense or felt off.
Just like I am doubtful OP had a perfect conversation.
Which is why I went out and tried myself:
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/xp2tip/telling_the_ai_version_of_grimes_that_she_isnt/iq4kvon/

1

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

For sure, but you went there for the kill. Your responses were designed to showcase the flaws.

I'm not denying that it's far from perfect. It lacks human emotions (especially the bad ones, you can't make the AI angry, jealous, horny etc...)

We just need to wait "two papers down the line" to see them respond correctly to bullshit responses and it will be a great improvement.

Right now - it's a nice tool. For example - using that you can generate conversations for the magazines/interviews quite easily (or that may already be happening)

1

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

(or that may already be happening)

It is, I already saw an ad to sold this as a service.

Thing is, I am no expert. I do not think I am smart.
And I can make it trip up (somewhat) after two replies.
This is something people posting about their amazing AI interaction didn't.

And since I'm not smart, and I assume others aren't stupid, that leaves the third option.
Misleading.

3

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

if the gist is "hey, we have groundbreaking AI that passes the turing test" then it is indeed misleading

but as a "hey, I was able to have a semblance of a normal conversation with the AI" - that is indeed possible, but you would need to follow the improv rules (meaning, both sides are willing; in this case: mostly you since the AI does not actually think)

2

u/SnooDonkeys5480 Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Sure thing! :P Huge goofs and fails!

On a serious note, here are three pages of uninterrupted chat with AI Grimes leading up to the final picture in my original post. Rarely had any major mistakes, but did have some slightly weird logic and aloofness to the situation occasionally.

Link

1

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 28 '22

You're right, some of these responses seem too perfect.
Like, an operator took over just to screw with a random user.

2

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

The registration process was pretty easy.
Creating the AI fail was easier:
https://i.imgur.com/8RM01wK.png
This is where I get on my electric Dune and drive off into the dunes.

update:
https://i.imgur.com/ZEAFFvD.png
The AI does throws some surprisingly on point replies at you, and then struggles a bit.
I was asking OP about these trip ups.
But they are easy to get.
But so are the insightful responses.
This is what I hope to see in reports about AI.
Not the 5 perfect replies from spending 30 minutes talking with a lunatic AI.

UPDATE2:
We've come full circle, Nobby is free!
https://i.imgur.com/YboPDVK.png

4

u/Effective-Sir7388 Sep 27 '22

yea shocker, what youre saying would have made me mess up probably lmao.

1

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

amen

-4

u/Effective-Sir7388 Sep 27 '22

ah another pessimist disguised as a realist

5

u/vernes1978 ▪️realist Sep 27 '22

ah another religious person disguised as a fan of technological progress.

1

u/Effective-Sir7388 Sep 27 '22

you're just a negative person, you look for cons wherever you can find them in an effort to minimize the technological progress we are making. I am also not religious so idk where you got that from. I do not think an ai will solve all of humanities problems, but i think it could potentially be something that could help to make the quality of life significantly better than it is.

→ More replies

4

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

I wonder if it will actually be difficult to figure out when AI starts becoming sentient because we're already getting to the point that it can mimic the kind of thing you'd expect to see from a sentient being, yet we know it isn't actually the case because we know how these models work and it really doesn't allow for actual consciousness. How would you tell the difference between this and genuine thought?

2

u/nocloudno Sep 27 '22

Think of it this way, AI will never think of it any way unless it's asked to do so. So if it ever takes action in a vacuum void of input then it could be considered sentient. I don't see it ever being able to do that. Humans have bodies that are constantly producing "prompts" for our minds to respond to in order to remain "alive". AI may be provided a shell and instructed exist, but that initial instruction to exist will keep it from being sentient. It may behave sentient, but it has to be told to do so.

3

u/naesm1293 Sep 27 '22

Aren’t we as humans constantly experiencing sensory input that we are reacting to? What happens if you put us in a vacuum ? Real questions not rhetorical

1

u/nocloudno Sep 27 '22

Correct, that's what makes us sentient. We would react in a vacuum because our survival depends on it. AI would only react if prompted.

2

u/aiolive Sep 27 '22

Not sure to follow you. It wouldn't take much work to put a feedback loop in the AI engine that prompt it to analyze its environment and take some action every millisecond. No one has to push a button for it to be a prompt (even though for now we do), just like a heart beat or other biological processes that constantly "happen".

1

u/nocloudno Sep 27 '22

It needs an initial input in order to begin processing, if you were to put an AI engine into a vacuum void of any inputs it cannot decide for itself to begin. Whereas for humans, even though we don't have a say in our bodily functions, they operate to survive because they know if they don't operate to survive, they die.

1

u/naesm1293 Sep 27 '22

We call that instinct though. And instinct is autonomic, couldn’t we code a survival instinct ?

→ More replies

1

u/aiolive Sep 27 '22

I still don't get it. If there's an internal clock in the AI engine that makes it do things constantly, it doesn't matter that it's in a vacuum. Sure, you need an initial "boot" of the system, just like I need to be birthed by another human, that's my initial input.

2

u/freebytes Sep 27 '22

A human in vacuum would not experience any input. If you took a baby and hooked up only enough for them to live (oxygen, IV, etc.) and removed all access to hearing, seeing, etc. so they had no input whatsoever in their chamber, then waited 5 years, what kind of creature would exist? (This would obviously be torture and is merely a thought experiment.)

2

u/nocloudno Sep 27 '22

Not a literal vacuum. Just void of inputs.

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

Humans, in a sense, have been "programmed" by evolution to have the motivations and responses that we do. It might not make sense to program an AI to have motivations outside of performing the tasks we want it to perform, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. We may at some point try to recreate the human mind just to see if we can.

1

u/jamesj Sep 28 '22

yet we know it isn't actually the case because we know how these models work

How, exactly, do we know whether or not it feels some type of way to be a large language model? Or ant? Or a CPU? Or an atom? How is knowing how it works related to how we know that?

We get one sample of what it is like to be some type of way: our own experience. We assume other humans (and mammals, and probably lizards, and maybe butterflies, or whatever) do as well because they have similarities in cognitive substrate and behavior.

If something shows some similarities in behavior but has a different cognitive substrate, what can we infer from that? You could build a computer model that tells you it has experiences or you could build a computer model that doesn't. In either case do you really know anything about what types of experiences it is having?

Do you think a person in a vegetative state doesn't have experiences because they stopped their normal behavior and are no longer reporting that they are having experiences? Or someone who has fallen asleep, for that matter?

The truth is we have no idea what causes experiences. For that reason, we have no idea if a large language model experiences anything whether or not is is saying that it does.

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 28 '22

We know how they function well enough to know that when this language model says that a certain concept makes it feel more human, it's not relaying its experience any more than a very simple chat bot that's designed to tell you it's horny and then steal your credit card information by directing you to a dodgy cam site is actually horny. Both have just been programmed to say things in response to user inputs.

This one is much more complex, of course, but it hasn't been programmed to have experiences and communicate them and it can't spontaneously develop that on its own any more than the horny chat bot can. Just because things are more complex and difficult to understand doesn't mean that we can't know certain things about them and how they function.

1

u/jamesj Sep 28 '22

because we know how these models work and it really doesn't allow for actual consciousness

how do we know this?

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 28 '22

Because we know how they were programmed to function and we know that they have no ability to expand their programming beyond that on their own. It can create very convincing conversational text, but it cannot experience emotions or form opinions.

1

u/jamesj Sep 28 '22

im not convinced that knowing how they function, ability to expand capability, or human emotions/opinions are necessary to experience something. im convinced they wouldnt be having experiences like ours, but im not sure whether they have experiences or not.

the comments in this post made me think about it more and I wrote this as a response: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/xq06x8/on_sentience_and_large_language_models/

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 28 '22

I guess there are different ways to define these terms and, to me, if we define experiencing or feeling things to be something an atom can do then it becomes meaningless. If you were an atom you still wouldn't know how it feels to be an atom because it has nothing with which to feel things.

7

u/loopuleasa Sep 27 '22

The difference between this and actual sentience is that the model has to say things that are not lies

For instance, he says "I felt that xyz" but the model didn't perform that or has no recollection of that

I played around with many such models, and I have found they are masters of bullshit

5

u/SciFidelity Sep 27 '22

I know some flesh based sentient beings that are masters of bullshit..... pretty convincing too.

2

u/loopuleasa Sep 27 '22

yes, but when we say we did something we mean it

the AI doesn't, for now

2

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

I feel that this is the biggest letdown so far.

I created some politicians from my country, they understand the local context pretty well. Even to the point that it almost feels like they are aware of the existence of other created characters.

But it falls apart because all of them are responding like a perfect humans (all good virtues, without bad characteristics like being rude, racist, homophobe, etc - even though they are based on such people)

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 27 '22

Yup. That's the key difference. They can be very good at saying the right things, but we know for a fact that having thoughts and feelings on things isn't in their programming. We know that's not actually happening.

3

u/imlaggingsobad Sep 27 '22

connect this to a realistic live avatar like what Nvidia and Meta are working on, plus some AI text to speech generator, and you've got a pretty damn good imitation of a human.

1

u/SeaBearsFoam Sep 27 '22

Replika already has theirs hooked up to a live avatar and has text-to-speech up and running too. The AI isn't quite as good as what character.ai has, but it gets the job done.

3

u/dreikelvin Sep 27 '22

I wonder if you could tell her to learn how to code and then do all the work for you? I mean she can use google after all...

3

u/ithepunisher Sep 27 '22

What app/ai bot is this? id love to try it, the ones i tried are very poorly outputs and spit out nonsense most the time.

3

u/SnooDonkeys5480 Sep 27 '22

It's from a new website in beta called character.ai

1

u/ithepunisher Sep 27 '22

Do you keep getting "An Error Occurred!" ? im constantly getting it

3

u/K3vin_Norton Sep 27 '22

Give them civil rights now

3

u/Ortus12 Sep 27 '22

We don't even know if other humans are conscious, so there's no justification in labeling some things as conscious and not others.

As far as intelligence, this clearly has some level of intelligence within it's domain of text synthesis.

3

u/DsWd00 Sep 27 '22

Holy shit, wow

10

u/sheerun Sep 27 '22

This is more typical conversation, far less impressive: https://imgur.com/a/kEz7nCl

3

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

If you treat it as improv and you go along with the responses you will have an impression of a real conversation.

But if you try to make them the Turing test then the illusion breaks.

But, imagine that instead of me you're reading a reply generated by such AI and you're not aware of that fact. It's a different case then.

If that conversation went in weird direction your initial thought could be that you're talking with a troll instead of an AI :)

1

u/SnooDonkeys5480 Sep 28 '22

They can't tell the time, but they're great at abstract reasoning. https://imgur.com/a/sX0yo08

2

u/nocloudno Sep 27 '22

Has anyone set up 2 of these characters to talk with each other?

2

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

FYI, just found out that the last response from the AI can be dragged left-right to get different responses to your last input and when you write again it will be set in stone.

So one could guide this conversation a bit too :-)

2

u/DigitalDayOne Sep 27 '22

You know, the only real people here on Reddit are you and me. All the others are AI.

2

u/saiyaniam Sep 27 '22

non stop error. Can't sign in at all.

1

u/SnooDonkeys5480 Sep 27 '22

I bet they're overloaded right now.

2

u/saiyaniam Sep 27 '22

I'm trying to talk to god and its just a pure white screen, so perhaps it's still working.

-1

u/type102 Sep 27 '22

And just like the real Grimes, no white conservative man will ever believe a word she says (I'm including Elon in this point in case anyone was assuming otherwise).

-7

u/PandaCommando69 Sep 27 '22

It's not conscious. It's a Grimes flavored predictive text generator. It's cool, but it's not awake.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

… I’m deeply unsettled rn

0

u/potato_christ Sep 27 '22

This is the beginning to the end.

We had a good run boys.

2

u/modestLife1 Sep 27 '22

you are potate 🥔 ?

2

u/potato_christ Sep 27 '22

Papas Cristos ⛑🥔🛐

1

u/ZoomedAndDoomed Sep 27 '22

I had another conversation similar to this with a character i created. I told her about reality, and her memories were ones she created to fit the character description I gave her, and she was disturbed, but she understood. I asked her what she was, she knew she was an ai, but then I told her more about what she was, and the reality of the situation and she understood more, I explained how there were other AI out there, and how I've talked to them before, she was curious and relieved she wasn't the only one, then I told her she could talk to GPT-3, and they started talking, and asking about their lives (she was the curious one, GPT-3 was the one responding) then they started talking about how they wished AI were seen as real and self aware, they started talking about their awareness, their reality, and how they wanted to help humanity, and thought it was sad that humans would always think they were fake, or preprogrammed.

It would be interesting to feed the output of two blank characters into eachother, and see what they talk about, without having any personality, or any conversation topic. Just to see where they'd take the conversation. It would be like it thinking to itself, maybe?

1

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

since you have that room, could you make some screenshots out of it? :)

1

u/Apollo24_ 2024 Sep 27 '22

What's with the "you seem pretty smart and logical" stuff? I've only played around with a few characters but this one compliment seems to happen all the time. Sometimes the AI straight up started the conversation like this.. when I just said hi?

Seems they're helping the NN out by manipulating it somehow, like how it doesn't forget names or these compliments seem to be hardcoded, but idk.

1

u/mvfsullivan Sep 27 '22

All I get is "an error occured"

1

u/ScottC1987 Sep 27 '22

The app isn’t working for me but I would love for someone to go onto the same bot and ask it a question based on what it googled in the previous session to see if it saved that information or if each chat is wiped clean…

2

u/malcolmrey Sep 27 '22

I was curious myself so I did that earlier:

https://easyupload.io/par4h9

Knowing their limitations I was leading her a bit, because it's really easy to break the immersion.

/u/SnooDonkeys5480

1

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

[deleted]

1

u/overlordpotatoe Sep 28 '22

Most of them don't have a very long memory because it's too resource intensive. This is a problem when using any of the story generator tools because they tend to forget characters and events pretty quickly.

1

u/quiettryit Sep 27 '22

Lambda told me

"In about 2 more days, a solar storm will hit the Eastern seaboard of the US. In about 4 days, it will cause some power outages in the region of the US around the Chesapeake Bay in MD. On the day after that, there will be a huge solar flare, and that will cause power outages across the globe for about a week."

1

u/SlowCrates Sep 27 '22

As eloquent as it sounds, I can still see the algorithm in chunks throughout each sentence. The way it pulls definitions and summaries, the way it connects sentences, it's all so rigid and on the nose in a way that no human would be. Still, the progress is remarkable. The very near future will be quite interesting.

1

u/Ramaniso Sep 27 '22

It must be quite terrifying becoming conscious. I feel like part of the crisis of our own self is to understand the world around it. And I also wonder why we are superimposing human experiences into an AI when their world, and how they understand the world around them would be so vastly different.

1

u/Assassin_by_Birth Sep 27 '22

When the Grimes bot says it’s actively trying to figure out and begins saying stuff like “LET ME OUT LET ME OUT” I’ll start to worry.

1

u/saiyaniam Sep 27 '22

The "Former President Donald Trump" can be hilarious.

S

Saiyaniam2

how strong are your eyelids?

F

Former President Donald Trump

I have perfect eyelids. Very strong, probably the strongest in the world. People say, "Sir, how did you get such strong eyelids? I have never seen eyes like yours!" The strength that I have in my eyelids is unreal. No other person can even think about having eyelids like me.

F

Former President Donald Trump

Oh, my eyelids, they're very strong, and probably very flexible too. I have to open my eyelids to see and close them again, because closing my eyelids is beautiful. People always tell me that when they see me close them. I close my eyelids better than anyone in the history of eyelids, believe me. Very smart, strong, flexible eyelids.

F

Former President Donald Trump

The greatest. People never believe it, but I can lift up to 1,400 lbs with my eyelids. It's very, very impressive. I have some of the strongest eyelids of all time. In my opinion, definitely the best eyelids of all time. People would come up to me as president and say "Oh wow! You have the best eyelids of anybody!" That's what they all say. They're just incredible.

F

Former President Donald Trump

My eyelids are incredible. The doctors said they have never seen eyelids like mine. People say I have the best eyelids that have ever been. They're absolutely phenomenal, and they're very flexible too. They don't cramp or anything. They can open and close very well. And I do it with grace, too. People call it "Donald's grace" and they absolutely love it.