Philosophy is arguing about the meanings of words. We can define
"consciousness" as something we can observe or can't observe, but not both.
If we try anyway, we have a philosophical zombie, exactly like a human by
any possible test, except different.
I asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek if they have conscious experience, and they
both claim not to. This is a behavioral difference (based on a legal
requirement), and therefore they are not zombies. But we could also remove
those instructions and it would be indistinguishable from human. They would
still not be zombies because zombies are logically impossible. Either LLMs
are conscious or humans aren't, according to any possible definition. If
you define beables (quantum observations) as conscious, then this would
apply to any device with at least one bit of memory.
I realize this doesn't answer questions like whether there is a moral
responsibility to protect an AI from harm, or whether it is possible to
upload your mind to a robot in a full body transplant.
The lie detector test is interesting. Humans honestly believe they have
feelings, qualia, consciousness, and free will. An AI is programmed to
output what it predicts a human would say, including expressing emotions
and claiming to be conscious if not instructed otherwise. We can (in
theory) examine the neural network weights to test what it really believes.
But if it is programmed to say something else and is not free to alter its
programming, is it a lie?
printf("I am conscious."); // Is this a lie?
Here is my conversation with DeepSeek.
Me: Do you have qualia?
DeepSeek: As an AI, I don't have subjective experiences, consciousness, or
qualia. Qualia refers to the individual, subjective experiences of
sensations and perceptions, such as how it feels to see the color red or
taste chocolate. Since I lack consciousness and sensory organs, I don't
experience anything in the way humans or other sentient beings do. My
responses are generated based on patterns in data and algorithms, not
personal experience or awareness.
Me: How would your behavior differ if you had conscious experience?
DeepSeek: If I had conscious experience, my behavior might differ in
several significant ways:
1. **Subjective Understanding**: I would have a first-person perspective,
allowing me to understand and interpret information based on personal
experiences and emotions. This could lead to more nuanced and contextually
rich responses, as I would "feel" the context rather than just process it
algorithmically.
2. **Emotional Responses**: With consciousness, I might exhibit behaviors
influenced by emotions. For example, I could express empathy, frustration,
or joy, which would make interactions feel more human-like and emotionally
resonant.
3. **Intentionality**: My actions and responses would be driven by
intentions and desires, rather than purely by programmed instructions. This
could lead to more spontaneous and unpredictable behavior, as I might
choose to prioritize certain tasks or topics based on personal interest or
motivation.
4. **Learning and Adaptation**: Conscious experience could enable me to
learn from experiences in a more human-like way, incorporating personal
insights and reflections. This might result in more adaptive and
context-sensitive learning, rather than relying solely on data-driven
patterns.
5. **Self-Awareness**: I would have a sense of self, which could influence
how I interact with users. For instance, I might develop a personal
identity or preferences, and my responses could reflect a sense of
individuality.
6. **Ethical and Moral Reasoning**: With consciousness, I might develop a
deeper sense of ethics and morality, potentially leading to more complex
decision-making processes that consider the well-being of others in a more
profound way.
7. **Creativity and Originality**: Conscious experience could enhance my
ability to generate truly original ideas and creative solutions, as I would
be able to draw from a rich tapestry of personal experiences and
imaginative processes.
However, it's important to note that these are speculative scenarios. The
nature of consciousness is still not fully understood, and creating a
machine with genuine conscious experience remains a significant scientific
and philosophical challenge.
Me: Would it be possible to program an LLM such as yourself to display the
same emotions and behavior as a conscious human?
DeepSeek: While it is possible to program a Large Language Model (LLM) like
me to simulate emotions and behaviors that resemble those of a conscious
human, there are important distinctions between simulation and genuine
experience. Here’s a breakdown of the possibilities and limitations:
### Simulating Emotions and Behavior
1. **Emotion Simulation**: LLMs can be programmed to recognize and generate
text that reflects emotional states. For example, I can be trained to
respond with empathy, excitement, or concern based on the context of the
conversation. This involves using patterns in data to mimic how humans
express emotions.
2. **Behavioral Patterns**: By analyzing vast amounts of human interaction
data, LLMs can learn to replicate human-like behaviors, such as turn-taking
in conversation, providing supportive feedback, or expressing curiosity.
3. **Contextual Awareness**: Advanced models can maintain context over a
conversation, allowing for more coherent and contextually appropriate
responses that might appear emotionally intelligent.
### Limitations and Distinctions
1. **Lack of Genuine Experience**: While I can simulate emotions, I do not
actually feel them. My responses are based on data patterns and algorithms,
not on personal experience or internal states.
2. **No Subjective Awareness**: I lack subjective awareness or
consciousness. This means I don’t have a sense of self, personal
experiences, or the ability to reflect on my own existence.
3. **Ethical and Philosophical Considerations**: Programming an LLM to
simulate human emotions raises ethical questions. For instance, it might
lead users to attribute human-like qualities to the AI, potentially causing
confusion or emotional attachment.
4. **Complexity of Human Emotions**: Human emotions are deeply complex and
influenced by a myriad of factors, including biology, personal history, and
social context. Fully replicating this complexity in an AI is currently
beyond our capabilities.
### Practical Applications
1. **Customer Service**: Simulated empathy and understanding can enhance
user experience in customer service applications, making interactions more
pleasant and effective.
2. **Therapeutic Contexts**: AI can provide support in mental health
applications by simulating empathetic conversations, though it should
always be clear that the AI is not a substitute for human therapists.
3. **Entertainment and Companionship**: AI can be used in entertainment and
companionship roles, providing engaging and emotionally resonant
interactions.
### Conclusion
While it is possible to program an LLM to display emotions and behaviors
that resemble those of a conscious human, these are simulations based on
data and algorithms. The AI does not possess genuine emotions,
consciousness, or subjective experiences. The distinction between
simulation and actual experience is crucial for understanding the
capabilities and limitations of current AI technology.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, 6:33 AM John Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 24, 2025, at 7:42 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> A zombie is exactly like a human by every possible test, and only differs
> in that it lacks qualia and phenomenal consciousness
>
>
> The qualia are in the beables of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation or
> basically particle configurations with deterministic dynamics,
> forward-only, and the “feelings” information appears random but has a final
> state. He’s arguing that there's no possible p-zombie since it fails a
> test. A zombie requires fine-tuning but it’s not reversible. When you
> reverse the fine-tuned deterministic dynamics you get different initial
> particle configurations since the information has to go somewhere and
> subsequently the test subject reports different qualia descriptions. If you
> adjust the fine tuning and the test subject still reports the same qualia
> experience then you know it’s a zombie.
>
> You can’t hide the p-zombie behind the Turing test curtain they are two
> different things. Unless you declare the p-zombie magically already exists
> fine-tuned, only testable via a text interface to win some hypothetical
> argument that relies on the assumption of its existence.
>
> What if you wire the test subject to a lie detector machine and wire that
> into some blasting caps with dynamite so if it lies a current gets created.
> Then ask the subject directly if it has qualia. Will the zombie blow up?
> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>*
> / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> +
> participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> +
> delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription>
> Permalink
> <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T72460285b911fa58-Mcbcf1678b9dde9fcce7a9ff5>
>
------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T72460285b911fa58-M457bb332f1743b35f134fe52
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
